Israel’s victories over Hezbollah and Hamas have shifted the regional balance, creating a rare window of opportunity to attack Iran. However, the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear program in 2025 hinges on three factors: Iran’s nuclear progress, US support, and Israel’s strategic window.
Ticking Clock: Iran’s Nuclear Drive
The most immediate catalyst for an Israeli strike is Iran’s proximity to a nuclear breakout.
According to the IAEA’s February 2025 report, Iran amassed 250 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, moving dangerously close to weapons grade material. Experts estimate this stockpile could yield several crude nuclear devices within months.
Tehran’s prominent nuclear sites are widely dispersed, and in Fordow’s case, buried deep within a mountain, complicating any attack and amplifying Israel’s urgency as Iran hardens protective measures.
Israel has long viewed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, a stance rooted in the country’s Holocaust-shaped ethos of “never again.” Polls suggest that a majority of Israelis support a preemptive strike.
If Israeli or foreign spy agencies detect signs of imminent weaponization, the likelihood of a strike to destroy or severely disrupt Iran’s project will increase immediately.
US Wild Card: Trump’s Priorities
The re-election of Donald Trump has reshaped the US-Israel dynamic, injecting both opportunity and uncertainty into Jerusalem’s plans. [here’s a detailed report on Israel in the Trump era]
The new US administration has revived “maximum pressure” sanctions, aiming to choke Iran’s economy and force a new nuclear deal. Trump publicly stated that he would prefer a diplomatic solution before considering military action.
Overall, Trump’s administration faces an internal conflict about the best course of action. Some hawks advocate a hard line, potentially approving US support in the form of refueling tankers or bunker busters for an Israeli strike.
However, other US officials prioritize de-escalation, wary of entangling America in another Middle Eastern war.
History suggests Israel won’t wait indefinitely for US approval. The 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 bombing of Syria’s nuclear facility were unilateral, banking on American forgiveness after the fact. However, the stakes in 2025 are higher.
Strategic Window: Opportunity and Risk
Israel’s recent military successes create a rare window. The IDF’s 2024 campaign obliterated Hezbollah’s leadership and arsenal, while Hamas lies in ruins, stripping Iran of its front-line proxies.
Moreover, US estimates from late 2024 suggest Iran’s ballistic missile production is stalled for at least a year. Iran’s air defenses, pummeled by the Israeli Air Force, have not yet recovered. [here’s more on Israel’s high-impact 2024 strike in Iran]
This vulnerability, coupled with Israel’s battle-tested air force and cyber capabilities, creates a tactical sweet spot.
Yet, windows close. Iran could harden its defenses or disperse its nuclear assets further. And with the passage of time, Tehran may be able to at least partially rebuild its shattered proxy network, adding more complexity to Israel’s calculations and strike plans.
Meanwhile, other risks abound: A strike could rally Iran’s regime, embroil Israel in a costly war of attrition with Tehran, or fail to halt nuclear progress if underground sites survive. In this case, an attack could encourage the Iranian leadership to quickly advance toward nuclear weapons.
Ultimately, Israel’s planners know that a strike must delay Iran’s program by years at least, not months, to justify the cost.
The Netanyahu factor
The likelihood of a strike in 2025 sits at roughly 50-50, driven by Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship and Israel’s narrowing options. Israel’s plans and capabilities for a strike are robust yet constrained by logistics and geopolitics.
Without American bombers, Israel might settle for a limited campaign, damaging some key nuclear sites while leaving others intact—a delay, not a knockout. With US backing and active participation, the odds tilt toward a decisive blow.
Finally, there is the Netanyahu factor. The prime minister, nearing a legacy-defining moment, might see 2025 as his last best shot. As fresh intelligence pours in, he may conclude that inaction is a luxury Israel can no longer afford.
In the end, a decision to strike in 2025 rests on a complex and dynamic triangle: Iran’s defiance, America’s global agenda, and Israel’s resolve.
