Host: Ezgi Toper

NIZAR: Damage isn't deterrence. Let's put it this way, it might be a driver. If the infrastructure, of course, isn't fully destroyed, Iran may double down rather than retreat. So yes, Israel has bought time but also fuelled Iran's determination.

EZGI: My name is Ezgi Toper, and this is “In the Newsroom”, a TRT Global Podcasts production, where I take you around our newsroom as I chat with my colleagues and go beyond the headlines. 

Around 3:00 am local time on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major attack on Iran.

Israeli air strikes rocked the capital Tehran, hitting multiple nuclear and military facilities. So far, over 240 people are reported dead in Iran, including high-ranking military officials and several of the country’s top nuclear scientists.

Iran’s response to Israel was swift: launching a barrage of hypersonic missiles over the last few days. Several locations in central and southern Israel have been hit, including the Soroka Medical Center, where dozens were injured.

With both countries trading direct blows, the region now teeters on the edge of an even wider war. Global powers are calling for restraint, but so far, neither side is backing down.

This week’s guest is my colleague Nizar Sadawi, TRT World’s Middle East Correspondent. He’s currently reporting from the region, so instead of chatting in the newsroom, Nizar gave me insights from the ground on this recent escalation. The big question is, could this spiral into a larger regional war?

NIZAR: From the outset, Israel has been executing what we may call a strategic symphony. Over 200 fighter jets and cover drones striking more than 100 sites, uranium conversion plants in Afahan, missile factories. Radar installations, IRGC command hubs, and even military universities. So the operation dubbed Operation Rising Lion, as they call it in Israel, of course, was underpinned by Mossad sabotage of 800 missile launchers, significantly degrading Iran's defences.

So in some, it wasn't reactive, it was proactive and actually precise. Israel's calculus here spans 3 exes. Nip Iran's nuclear timeline, shatter their missile and air defence force, and more importantly, broadcast a message that Israeli strategic depth remains indented even inside Tehran's fortified zones. So the objective wasn't surface-level damage, obviously it was measured demolition of Iran's deterrent and command infrastructure designed to reshape the regional power narrative.

EZGI: Israel claims its strikes are all about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb — something Iran denies. And according to U.S. intelligence, Iran isn’t actively building one. So I asked Nizar if there is actually any solid evidence that Iran is closer than ever to making a nuke.

NIZAR: Hmm… technically yes. As of mid-June, Iran holds about 408-409 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, a material quantity that took it firmly into weapons-grade territory, enough for potentially 8 to 10 nuclear cores if further processed according to experts. That's raw capacity. But capacity is one thing, weaponisation is another. So let me be clear here. No direct evidence of warhead assembly, no missile-mounted cores, no controlled detonation infrastructure.

Despite Western counter-narratives, of course, the IAEA and even the US intelligence say there's no definitive proof of a final decision to cross that line. So yes, Iran is closer than before, but intent remains ambiguous. It's a grey zone, let me put it this way, it's definitely a grey zone, and that's where the geopolitical threat lives.

EZGI: So, the International Atomic Energy Agency (or the IAEA) also says there’s no clear signs Iran made the call to build a bomb. But if that’s what Israel is trying to prevent — could these strikes actually delay things, or risk pushing Iran to go all in?

NIZAR: Well, that's a very good question. Here lies the paradox. On the one hand, Natan's and Esfahan took a hit. Centrifuges were created, converging rooms gutted. Experts there estimate a 5 to 6-month enrichment delay.

On the other hand, however, such strategic strikes do provide Tehran with a patent narrative lever, reinforcing national resolve and perhaps even propagating the message that only nuclear deterrence would keep them free from existential threats, existential threats, that that's a word that Israel, mainly Prime Minister Netanyahu, loves to use all the time. So analysts there would warn that Israel's tactical win may turn into a strategic motivational boost.

Damage isn't deterrence. Let's put it this way, it might be a driver. If the infrastructure, of course, isn't fully destroyed, Iran may double down rather than retreat. So yes, Israel has bought time but also fuelled Iran's determination. Of course, all of this depends on whether the regime there in Iran falls or not. Israel has been saying that changing the regime in Tehran isn't the goal, but they're also saying it might be a result of this war.

EZGI: So, what do we know about Israel’s own nuclear arsenal? 

NIZAR: Well, officially, nothing. Unofficially, we do know a few things. Israel has never signed the nuclear nonproliferation Treaty, for example, and maintains a deliberate policy of nuclear ambiguity, what's known as strategic opacity. But decades of leaks, whistleblowers, for example, Mordechai Vanunu, satellite images, and of course, US memos, they all point to one clear reality: Israel does possess nuclear weapons by most credible estimates, anywhere between 80 and 200 warheads, and they're not just buried in some dusty bunker.

Israel is believed to have second-strike capabilities via submarines and Jericho missiles, giving it a robust, deterrent posture. Israeli officials neither confirm nor deny it, and global powers tiptoe around the elephant in the room, afraid of what officially acknowledging this might trigger diplomatically. Let me put it this way. So, while Tel Aviv lectures others on nuclear risks, it does so from a quiet but very well fortified glasshouse.

EZGI: But, is this not a double standard? 

NIZAR: Yes, absolutely, and it's institutionalised. Israel's messaging on Iran's nuclear ambitions is relentless. Tehran must never get the bomb. Tehran must never get the bomb. Well, fair enough, nuclear proliferation in a volatile region is dangerous. But the irony is radioactive here. Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, and unlike Iran, it doesn't even allow inspections or engage with the IAEA.

Meanwhile, Iran is a signatory to the NPT, has been under intense international scrutiny, and, according to many assessments, hasn't crossed the final line toward weaponisation. So yes, the double standard is glaring. The global system allows one state to operate in the shadows with impunity while another gets sanctioned, threatened, and surveilled for even enriching uranium.

EZGI: Iran’s military claims it used new methods to disrupt Israeli defence system's Iron Dome’ earlier this week, causing them to actually target each other. We've seen Iran's response thus far, but what non-military actions has it taken and what can we expect them to do next?

NIZAR: Iran is using the full spectrum diplomatically, economically, digitally. I mean, in terms of diplomacy, Iran has convened emergency sessions at the IAEA and the UN broadcast credible civilian casualty counts. They're proving that most of those who were killed in the attacks are noncombatants. Civilians. And this is, of course, to frame the strikes as a humanitarian crisis.

In terms of economics. Iran is fast-tracking oil exports to China, India, and Russia, of course, offsetting Western pressure even as it threatens to halt nuclear dialogue. 

In terms of the narrative control, they've restricted internet in some parts of Tehran, still flooding regional Persian and Arabic channels specifically with martyrdom stories, resistance, imagery, and anti-Israel sentiment. 

Next phase likely includes cyber warfare, targeting Western or Israeli infrastructure. Proxy operations maybe through some of the groups that have always supported the Iranian regime, especially in Iraq, in Yemen, Lebanon. Attempts to expose new secret enrichment sites and intensify diplomatic overtures through Gulf mediators to restart talks. They do have an interest in restarting talks, so long as Western military involvement is off the table, of course, that could change.

EZGI: Nizar mentioned “narrative control”. This is a pattern we keep observing in other conflicts. The battle of information.

We’ve discussed this in an earlier episode of “In The Newsroom” regarding the conflict between Pakistan and India. If you’re interested in that, be sure to listen to the episode “From Battlefield to Bollywood”.

But in regards to the current conflict, ⁠how are both sides using media to shape the narrative?

NIZAR: This is a hyper-information battlefield. Regarding Israel, broadcasting precision mainly, footage from F-35 sorties after action intelligence briefings, official statements, stressing “existential response”, that's the term they always like to use, as we said before. So all of this, all aimed at Western and global audiences, mainly. When it comes to Iran, showcasing civilian suffering, bombed apartment buildings, hospital scenes, martyr funerals streamed across regional networks to generate emotional solidarity and moral indignation. 

Meanwhile, both have weaponised AI deep fakes, short-form influencer content and misinformation networks. The goal of course, not just to tell the story, but mainly to own the global narrative horizon.

EZGI: As things heat up, all eyes are turning to Israel’s closest ally and Iran’s biggest foe: The United States of America. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already incited the US to join Israel against Iran, but Iran's deputy foreign minister has warned the US to stand down. Could the US be compelled to join the battle? And what Gulf countries or Russia, and China?

NIZAR: Already US carriers and fighter wings are in the region. President Trump is publicly backing Israel's demands for what they call unconditional surrender, and intelligence suggests any direct hit on US assets or troops would definitely trigger automatic US response. Trump said this actually, he implied that they would directly interfere if US personnel are targeted. 

TRUMP: My supporters don’t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon. Nobody thinks it's okay. People that don’t wa- I don’t want to fight either, I’m not looking to fight but if it’s a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.

NIZAR: Washington has even hinted at possible strikes on Iran's underground nuclear sites if things get worse. That's not posturing. That's actually preparation, and once the US is involved directly, everything changes. That's a game changer.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others are sticking to a dual-track strategy. Public appeals for calm, private contingency, military preparations, and strategic hedging by deepening Western defence ties. Their economic diversification strategies depend on regional stability, and they won't risk it easily. That’s obvious.

What about other key players like Russia or China? Russia is exerting diplomatic support for Tehran, using it to build geopolitical leverage without committing troops. China is focused on energy security and regional trade stability, keen to mediate and maintain oil flow. So, long story short, both prefer influence over escalation. But it doesn't rule out the possibility of one or both of them being dragged into this. It depends on how the Western countries and the US mainly react.

EZGI: In response to US involvement, Iranian officials are threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically important waterways in the world. It connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. 

Roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil passes through this narrow waterway – that’s about 17 million barrels per day. So, if Iran blocks the strait, Nizar says it will severely impact global economies.

NIZAR: This is where the local turns global. If Iran tries to hold, close, or mine the Strait of Hormuz, it could throttle 20 percent of global oil flow. This would trigger immediate oil spikes, renewed inflation, gyrating insurance rates, supply chain disruptions from Europe to Asia, and economic tremors rippling from Moscow to Mumbai to Istanbul. It's not just a regional spike. It actually becomes a global laborious squeeze.

EZGI: And finally, a question that's been circulating widely online: Are we witnessing the beginning of a wider war, possibly even World War III?

NIZAR: Right now what we are seeing is, I'd say, phase one, carefully planned air strikes at somehow limited missile exchanges and the beginning of cyber operations. But we are standing right on the edge of phase two. That's where a single mistake could set off a chain reaction.

Think about it: A misfired missile hits a US base in Iraq. A drone crashes in Saudi territory or a ship is attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. One wrong move could pull in the US, Gulf states, and even perhaps others into something far more dangerous. And that's when a regional fight starts looking like something much bigger.

On the diplomacy side, countries like Qatar and Oman are working quietly behind the scenes to cool things down. Some European governments are also talking to different sides, but so far, those efforts are small. And they're running out of time. So, what should we expect next? More strikes from both sides, I'd say likely through proxies, even cyber attacks on oil systems, airports, maybe, infrastructure, and possibly a bold move from Iran to test how far the US is willing to go.

For now, the world is watching, we're all watching and hoping that cooler heads still have a seat at that table.

EZGI: This latest escalation between Israel and Iran is a turning point in a long-simmering conflict that’s now out in the open. And as Nizar says, just one miscalculation, one stray missile, one wrong move and this regional battle could spiral into something much bigger. 

Thanks for tuning in. Until next time, I’m Ezgi Toper, and this was “In the Newsroom”.

—

This was a TRT Global podcast production. This episode for “In the Newsroom” was produced by Ezgi Toper and was edited by Nasruallah Yılmaz. Supervising editor Burak Bayram, executive producers Nasra Omar Bhuvanna. Our production team also includes Khalid Selim, Mucteba Samil Olmez and Afzal Ahmed.

You can also download the TRT Global app called More for, well, more, the latest news, updates, videos, and podcasts.

Thanks for listening.