Israel’s strikes might accelerate Iran’s race towards nuclear weapons

Many in Tehran will urge a redoubled effort to develop nuclear weapons, after Israel’s attacks once again exposed the weakness of Iran’s conventional deterrence.

Expert comment Published 13 June 2025 3 minute READ

Dr Marion Messmer

Senior Research Fellow, International Security Programme

Israel attacked a range of Iranian military and nuclear sites on 12–13 June, in an attempt to prevent Tehran from making further progress towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel targeted missile bases, nuclear sites, nuclear scientists and military personnel – all important parts of a potential nuclear weapons programme. Iranian defences appear to have been powerless to prevent the attack.  

Israel has threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear programme for a long time. The attacks come during a period of reprised nuclear diplomacy between the US and Iran. They also follow a formal vote by the IAEA board of governors in favour of a motion declaring Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The IAEA was concerned about Iran’s undeclared nuclear materials and that it has become increasingly difficult for the agency to monitor the country’s enrichment activities.

An IAEA report, prepared ahead of the board of governors meeting, warned that Iran had enough enriched uranium to make nine nuclear weapons. With the report, and the vote, the IAEA intended to signal the seriousness of the situation and create space for Iran to return to compliance with IAEA inspections. 

—

How worried should we be about Israel’s strikes in Iran?

That would have supported the continuation of negotiations between Iran and the US. Diplomats were supposed to meet again on Sunday for a fresh round of negotiations. Israel’s attacks have for now put an end to a diplomatic solution: Iran immediately called off the talks following Israel’s attack.

The US maintains that it did not have a part in the attacks, but it removed its diplomats from the region yesterday, suggesting it was aware that attacks were about to take place – and that it was unable or unwilling to stop Israel. US President Donald Trump now claims that Israel’s attacks were part of a US strategy to force Iran to accept a deal.

The effect of strikes

Israel has said for a long time that it cannot accept an Iranian nuclear programme, which it considers an existential threat. It seems that with Iranian air defences weakened by last year’s strikes, and US nuclear diplomacy proceeding at a slow pace, Israel decided that a preventive strike now was its best option to prevent an Iranian bomb.

However, the preventive strike may have the opposite effect. Those in the Iranian government who believe that Iran needs nuclear weapons to deter further Israeli attacks and increase Iran’s leverage in the Middle East will now be in a stronger position.

If the military threat from Israel is seen as growing, and stability in the region is declining, a stronger case can be made by hardliners for Iranian nuclear weapons.

Iran has long hedged its bets on nuclear weapons, as various political groupings within the government hold divergent views on the risks and benefits involved. Iran has remained just below the threshold of developing a nuclear weapon, signalling the ability to develop a bomb, but stopping short of stepping over the line into becoming a nuclear power.  

That period could now be over. If the military threat from Israel is seen as growing, and stability in the region is declining, a stronger case can be made by hardliners for Iranian nuclear weapons.

A map showing the key nuclear sites in Iran.
—

Map of the key nuclear sites in Iran. Source: Natural Earth/Wikimedia/GeoHack/Google Maps.

If Israel continues to attack its nuclear and military facilities, repeatedly exposing the weakness of its conventional deterrence, Iran has a strong incentive to put together a rudimentary nuclear weapon as quickly as it can, to deter any further damage of its facilities – and demonstrate that it is capable of defending its sovereignty.

This strategy is not without risks. Current intelligence estimates are that Iran has nuclear materials for nine nuclear bombs. This is not enough for a serious strategic arsenal. And estimates of Israel’s nuclear arsenal far exceed those numbers. The Iranian government would also face a difficult choice with regards to how to signal its new nuclear status.

Other recent nuclear weapons powers like North Korea used nuclear testing as a clear signal that they now had the capabilities. However, if Iran can at most build nine nuclear weapons, it is unclear it will feel it can spare even one for a test. That will likely depend both on the extent of the threat, how quickly it can enrich additional nuclear materials, and the speed of its warhead and missile construction.

This activity would likely be hard to conceal completely, given the extent of the Israeli, US and other intelligence capabilities focused on Iran. If it looks as if Tehran is rushing ahead with developing nuclear weapons, it will likely invite further attacks. 

A rush towards nuclear breakout could also change Israel’s strategic calculus to the extent that Israel considers using a nuclear weapon against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The nuclear site in Natanz is hardened against attack, located deep underground. For now, no radiation leaks have been reported. 

This is positive – a risk of Israel’s attacks on nuclear facilities could be radiation release that could harm people and the environment across the region, far beyond Iran. Beyond that, it is difficult to assess the damage done to the enrichment facility.

The risks of escalation

Nuclear possessor states often argue that nuclear weapons still have utility as they are able to destroy hardened targets that conventional weapons cannot damage.

The Israeli government has demonstrated that it is determined to eradicate the Iranian nuclear programme. If it cannot destroy nuclear facilities by other means, will it risk using nuclear weapons to finish the job?

Any nuclear strike to eradicate a developing nuclear programme would destabilize the entire international security architecture.

Governments seem to be learning dangerous lessons from other proliferators like North Korea – whose nuclear arsenal continues to grow while the international community is forced to look on. In order to preserve international stability, further nuclear proliferation cannot be tolerated.

But at the same time, any nuclear strike to eradicate a developing nuclear programme would destabilize the entire international security architecture, invite further proliferation – and create a frightening precedent.

Prior to Israel’s air strikes, it seemed that Iran and the US were willing to find a diplomatic solution – that is needed now more than ever, to prevent an unpredictable and dangerous escalation.