Last Friday, Harvard Kennedy School experts at the Belfer Center provided thoughts on Israel's strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Since then, the conflict has only widened. Read views from experts on nuclear issues and the Middle East below.
These insights were originally published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs on June 13. Visit .
The Odds of Iran Getting the Bomb Likely Just Went Up: Matthew Bunn
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to launch strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a tragic mistake. Though Iran and its allies in the region have been greatly weakened, they will surely try to strike back hard, raising the danger of a wider war.
More importantly, the strikes demonstrate to Iran’s leadership that it needs a nuclear deterrent. The faction in Iran that thought Iran’s interests would be best served by deals that brought better relations with the West and left Iran with a bomb option but not a bomb should probably be counted among the targets destroyed. Iran is likely to seek to move toward nuclear weapons at secret and deeply buried sites.
In my judgment, the probability that Iran will have nuclear weapons ten years from now is higher now than it would have been without the strikes. That would be a dramatic blow to both Israeli and American security and to the global effort to stem the spread of nuclear weapons.
Matthew Bunn is the James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Energy, National Security, and Foreign Policy at ĚÇĐÄvlogąŮÍř and co-principal investigator of the Project on Managing the Atom.
“In my judgment, the probability that Iran will have nuclear weapons ten years from now is higher now than it would have been without the strikes.”
Quick Take by Francesca Giovannini
Israel’s military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities will be a protracted, multi-stage campaign. With no direct American intervention and constrained by geographic distance and finite military resources, Israel will carry out successive waves to degrade each Iranian site over time. The region must therefore brace for sustained uncertainty, as political and security effects will extend long beyond the initial strikes.
Strategically, the campaign exposes glaring Iranian intelligence failures and underscores Israel’s ability to exploit vulnerabilities in Iran’s strategic landscape. Supreme Leader Khamenei’s call for national unity in the aftermath of the attack signals— in my view—that Tehran perceives a mortal struggle against converging domestic and international threats. Iran must therefore walk a fine line: respond decisively to Israel without triggering American intervention, while maintaining cohesion among diverse domestic constituencies without deepening internal fractures.
More than a military achievement, Israel’s operation has trapped the Iranian regime in a worsening spiral that limits its strategic options and jeopardizes its survival.
is the executive director of the Project on Managing the Atom.
“More than a military achievement, Israel’s operation has trapped the Iranian regime in a worsening spiral that limits its strategic options and jeopardizes its survival.”
The World must Choose between an Abraham Accords Vision or a Middle East Cold War: Barak Sella
Israel’s recent strike on Iranian leadership and nuclear infrastructure marks a daring but calculated escalation. After Iran’s refusal to reach an agreement with Trump and mounting evidence that Tehran was racing toward nuclear capability, Israel acted decisively, not against the Iranian people, but against the IRCG, an extremist regime that funds terror, represses dissent, and destabilizes the region.
The operation demonstrated Israel's intelligence and military capabilities despite diminishing international standing and internal political strain. However, while the majority of Israelis do not support the current government, there remains high trust in the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet, along with broad consensus around Israel's national security interests. Israel continues to shoulder the weight of an unpopular battle against the region's extreme actors: decimating Hamas and Hezbollah, confronting the Houthis, and now directly engaging the IRGC.
Several scenarios may unfold: Iran's nuclear capabilities could be destroyed, potentially opening a window for regime collapse. Iran may return to negotiations from a weakened position or double down and accelerate its nuclear efforts. Most likely, tit-for-tat escalation looms between Iran and Israel, potentially drawing in global powers like Russia and China, requiring international mediation.
“Israel continues to shoulder the weight of an unpopular battle against the region's extreme actors: decimating Hamas and Hezbollah, confronting the Houthis, and now directly engaging the IRGC.”
This moment also presents an opportunity. Five IDF divisions and 53 hostages still remain in Gaza. Until yesterday, Israel and Hamas were locked in a deadlock. Resetting the table, with Arab states taking responsibility for Gaza, could finally end the war and return the hostages. But this depends on deterring Iran, the root source of Israel’s security challenges.
The international community now faces hard choices that will be unpopular with a growing political base in their countries that opposes Israel. The pre–October 7 reality is gone. The world must choose between a thriving Abraham Accords Middle East, including Syria and Lebanon, and others, that requires a deterred and dismantled IRCG, or a fractured region locked in perpetual conflict and a nuclear arms race that could make the Cold War look like a walk in the park.
is a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Quick Take by Amos Yadlin
Israel’s recent strike on Iranian nuclear facilities was carried out under the framework of the “Begin Doctrine,” the longstanding Israeli policy that no regime threatening its existence will be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. With U.S.-Iran negotiations stalled and Iran accelerating its weaponization efforts while approaching the nuclear threshold, Israeli leadership identified a narrow and urgent window to act. Unlike previous one-off strikes in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), this operation may mark the start of a sustained campaign - and possibly even a wider conflict.
What happens next remains uncertain. Scenarios range from a contained confrontation between Israel and Iran, to renewed diplomacy, to broader regional escalation involving the U.S. and Gulf states. In a worst-case - though less likely - scenario, global tensions could rise if China and Russia step in to support Tehran. Yet the key question is not only how Iran will respond, but how Washington chooses to act.
“The United States now faces a strategic crossroads.”
The United States now faces a strategic crossroads. One option is to provide defensive support to Israel while using the momentum to revive negotiations and pursue a stronger nuclear agreement - advancing President Trump’s vision of “peace through strength.” The other is for the U.S. to assume a leading role in the strategic campaign against Iran, degrading its capabilities, reasserting American deterrence in the Middle East, and sending a powerful signal to adversaries like Russia and China.
A third possibility looms: that domestic political pressures, particularly from isolationist voices within the MAGA wing, could push Trump toward disengagement and restraint. The coming days will reveal which path he chooses. What is clear, however, is that without decisive U.S. leadership, Israel’s military success will not evolve into long-term strategic stability.
is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
—
Banner image: People observe fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran, Iran. Photo by Stringer/Getty Images
Faculty portraits by Martha Stewart and courtesy of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs