Israel’s air strikes on Iran might not be unprecedented, but experts warn that the scope of the attack, which directly targeted nuclear sites, marks a dramatic escalation that could engulf a regional war. 

Dr Hursit Dingil, an Ankara-based security analyst closely monitoring the developments, the nature and scale of the Israeli operation suggest a meticulously planned military campaign. 

“Israel’s multi-phase, targeted aerial assault significantly degraded Iran’s military and nuclear command infrastructure.” 

The death of senior Iranian officials, including the Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Major General Hossein Salami,  is a major blow for Tehran, he says. 

The strikes also eliminated nuclear scientists and damaged critical air defence systems, particularly those in western Iran. 

Precision-guided munitions reportedly struck residential compounds in Tehran believed to house top IRGC leaders, while a broad array of military bases, missile sites and drone hubs were targeted across several provinces, including Kermanshah, Lorestan, Tabriz and Ahvaz.

“These strikes came roughly two months after the initiation of US-Iran nuclear negotiations in Muscat on April 12,” Dr Dingil noted.

But hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough had already been dashed. 

“By the fourth round of talks, serious disagreements began to emerge, notably seen by the explosion at Bandar Abbas Port. The talks then resumed with a contentious fifth round.”

The central point of contention remained unchanged: Iran’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment. President Donald Trump, in a final bid to salvage diplomacy, sent a direct warning to Iran’s Supreme Leader — a warning that expired on June 12. The following day, Israel attacked Iran. 

From a strategic perspective, the Israeli operation was not simply a preemptive strike but a continuation of previous suppression campaigns. 

“This latest campaign appears to be a continuation of Israel’s previous air suppression operations (SEAD) conducted in April and October 2024, which significantly compromised Iran’s integrated air defence network.”

The breadth of the operation included advanced aerial assaults carried out by F-15, F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, with sequential targeting of radar installations, air defence networks, and command facilities. 

The Natanz uranium enrichment complex—one of Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites—was reportedly hit with bunker-buster munitions, a move indicating the intensity of the strike.

“Crucially,” Dingil added, “the deliberate targeting of missile and UAV sites indicates an Israeli intent to limit Iran's retaliatory strike capabilities.” 

He described the strikes as part of a “Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses” (DEAD) operation, pointing to a broader strategy coordinated—albeit tacitly—with Washington.

The implications of this escalation stretch far beyond the immediate military toll. 

Mustafa Yetim, who teaches at the Eskisehir Osmangazi University, the timing and intensity of the Israeli strike underscore the collapse of a delicate diplomatic equilibrium maintained in the post-October 7 regional order.

“The renewed cycle of confrontation between Iran and Israel appears to be spiralling beyond the control of even the United States,” Yetim warned, “signalling the potential for a delayed but full-scale regional war shaped by the post-7 October geopolitical equilibrium.”

While the Trump administration had previously demonstrated rhetorical hostility toward Tehran, it also displayed moments of caution, recognising the long-term value of nuclear negotiations. 

“This delicate balance was abruptly disrupted,” Yetim said, referring to the Israeli strikes which occurred just before a scheduled negotiation round in Oman.

For Yetim, the move was not merely an escalation, but a signal of Israel’s growing willingness to act unilaterally, regardless of the consequences. “From the Iranian perspective, Israel’s latest attacks underscore Tehran’s continued vulnerability and strategic shortcomings.”

The broader context, he added, points to a geopolitical reality in which Israel can enforce its strategic agenda with minimal resistance and pushback from Iran or international powers.

“Hezbollah's setbacks, the diminishing Iranian presence and influence in Syria, and the repeated failures to prevent high-profile assassinations carried out by Israeli intelligence,” Yetim noted, “highlight the strategic imbalance.”

This imbalance, he argued, has allowed Israel to solidify a form of de facto regional hegemony — one that lacks meaningful oversight or accountability.

Yetim also raised urgent questions about nuclear asymmetry in the region. 

“Israel remains the sole nuclear-armed state in the Middle East and continues to refuse to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, it actively seeks to prevent any other regional power from developing advanced military or nuclear capabilities.”

This asymmetry, he insisted, is more than a technical issue — it is a fundamental obstacle to any enduring peace in the Middle East. 

“The current phase of confrontation cannot be described merely as another episode of retaliation,” Yetim concluded. “Rather, it reflects an escalating direct conflict between two long-standing adversaries.”

With the prospects for diplomacy growing dim and the spectre of wider conflict looming, both Yetim and Dingil underscored the need for urgent international intervention.

“Unless urgently addressed by international actors—especially the United States, which still holds substantial leverage—the situation could lead to a wider regional conflagration, with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences,” Yetim warned.