The architects of instability: How Israel and the US ignited the Middle East nuclear crisis

Israel and the United States, through aggressive policies and exaggerated narratives, have created a threat in the Middle East that did not previously exist. Israel’s large-scale attacks on Iran in June 2025, known as Operation “Lion’s Rise,” along with the US’s implicit support of these actions, have pushed Iran toward a path it had previously avoided: moving toward nuclear weapons as a deterrent. These attacks, targeting both military and civilian Iranian facilities and causing dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, took place while Iran was engaged in indirect negotiations over its nuclear program. Instead of weakening Iran, these attacks have strengthened the country’s determination to acquire nuclear capability because Iran’s conventional deterrence against Israeli attacks has proven inadequate. These aggressive policies, rooted in baseless claims of an “imminent threat” from Iran, have not only destabilized the region but also pushed Iran toward an option it had previously avoided.

Before the June 2025 attacks, Iran was negotiating with global powers to revive the JCPOA, talks that could have eased tensions and kept Iran’s nuclear program under international supervision. However, Israel, with tacit support from the Trump administration, disrupted these talks with its strikes. These attacks, carried out under the pretext of preventing a “nuclear threat,” happened while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had reported no evidence of Iran moving toward nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran had for years followed a “nuclear threshold” policy—maintaining the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon without crossing the red line of actual production. But Israeli attacks, which damaged the Natanz facility and targeted nuclear scientists, have put Iran in a position where nuclear deterrence might be seen as the only way to preserve its sovereignty. These attacks could motivate Iran to accelerate its nuclear program because its conventional defenses against Israeli strikes have proven weak. This shift is a direct result of Israeli and American policies that sacrificed diplomacy for military adventurism.

READ: Trump says US conducted ‘very successful’ strikes on 3 Iranian nuclear sites

A history of provocation and unintended consequences

Israel and the US have previously created threats through similar actions that could have been managed through diplomacy. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor is a historical example. That attack, justified as preventing Iraq’s weapons program, not only failed to stop Iraq’s nuclear ambitions but pushed Iraq to pursue its program covertly underground. Today, Israel’s attacks on Iran, which targeted Natanz but failed to destroy the key Fordow facility, increase the risk of repeating this scenario. Instead of eliminating the threat, these attacks have strengthened Iran’s motivation to acquire nuclear weapons, as Iran now sees its conventional deterrence as insufficient. US support for these attacks—even if indirect, through withdrawing diplomats from the region before the strikes and failing to intervene—reflects alignment with this risky strategy. These policies have not only pushed Iran toward nuclear weapons but also increased the risk of a regional arms race.

Israel’s attacks on Iran, backed implicitly by the US, have had broad consequences for the Middle East and the world. Conducted amid nuclear negotiations, these strikes weakened diplomacy and brought the region closer to wider conflict. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel, causing deaths and significant damage. This cycle of action and reaction, rooted in Israel’s initial strikes, could further destabilize the region—especially as Iranian-backed groups like the Houthis continue to disrupt stability. Beyond the region, this conflict threatens global energy supply chains, since Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and could disrupt oil flow. Moreover, escalating tensions raise the risk of a nuclear arms race, as countries like Saudi Arabia may seek similar weapons in response to Iran’s nuclear progress. These outcomes—direct results of aggressive Israeli policies and US backing—demonstrate a threat created that could have been avoided through diplomacy.

READ: Iran reports it evacuated materials prior to US strikes on nuclear sites

Iran’s deterrence dilemma

Iran, which for years avoided developing nuclear weapons, now faces a situation where it may see nuclear arms as the only deterrent against repeated Israeli aggression. Reports indicate Iran possesses enough material for nine nuclear bombs but had refrained from crossing its nuclear threshold. Recent attacks targeting civilian sites and scientists have shifted this calculus. The New York Times reports that Iran may accelerate its nuclear program to prevent future strikes. This change in approach is a direct consequence of Israeli and American policies that sidelined diplomacy and pushed Iran toward an option it had long avoided. Iran may now conclude that acquiring nuclear capability is the only way to preserve its sovereignty and deter Israel—a threat that did not exist prior to these attacks.

By creating a nuclear threat that previously did not exist, Israel and the US have endangered the region and the world. The June 2025 attacks not only failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program but strengthened Iran’s resolve to obtain nuclear weapons. The world now faces the risk of a regional arms race and global instability—circumstances that diplomacy could have altered. The international community, especially the West, must end its blind support for Israeli actions and instead focus on reviving nuclear talks with Iran. Only through diplomacy can escalation be prevented and the region kept from the brink of nuclear war. Israel and the US, through their flawed policies, have created a threat that didn’t have to exist—now is the time to correct this mistake.

OPINION: Gideon’s Chariots: Repeating a strategic and humanitarian disaster in Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.