Missile Attacks on Iran. What Are the Consequences? | Current affairs lecture with political scientist Bertjan Verbeek and Middle East expert Nora Stel

Attacks and ceasefire

On 13 June 2025, Israel attacked archenemy Iran. Israel justified the targeted attacks on Iran's nuclear programme, Iranian scientists and senior military personnel by invoking self-defence in response to heightened nuclear threats from Iran. After days of attacks back and forth between Iran and Israel, the United States also interfered by bombing Iran on 22 June.

After 12 days of war, a ceasefire followed. Host Liesbeth Jansen asked the Radboud scholars whether this ceasefire is the end of the war. Middle East expert Nora Stel sees a lot of relief and surprise in the region that the situation has not escalated further. But we have recently seen more frequent ceasefires in the region, which also came off the table. As a result, the situation remains uncertain, Stel explained. Professor of international relations Bertjan Verbeek wonders how Iran will reflect on what has happened. He pointed out tonight that the recent attacks have made Iranians experience their country's fragility: its air defence system proved weak.

Momentum

Jansen asked about the momentum of the attacks on Iran. Does Iran actually pose an acute nuclear threat, as Israel claims? Stel believes not. She explained that US intelligence shows that Iran is still months away from a nuclear bomb, and that, moreover, Iran has no intention of making that bomb now. According to Stel, the fact that Israel did attack Iran now has partly to do with the situation in the Gaza Strip. The idea that this attack is a diversion from the situation in Gaza is prevalent among many of her contacts in Lebanon and Syria, among others. Verbeek seemed to agree with Stel, but also stressed that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent to which Iran is a nuclear threat. And he pointed out that Israel has been planning this attack for more than two years, even before 7 October 2024.

Who will emerge victorious from these airstrikes? Stel explained that both Israel and Iran claim victory. The Iranian regime considers just getting through the attacks a victory, as Iran would be the weaker party. At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu considers the material damage to Iran a victory for his own Israel. And perhaps US interference in the conflict is Israel's biggest victory, Stel opined.

Framing

Stel explained that Iran is clearly the weaker party in this conflict. She pointed not only to the context of recent Israeli attacks on Hezbollah and Syria, but also to Israel's great nuclear power. Yet Western countries see Israel as the region's underdog, the Middle East expert observes. Jansen noted that she saw little surprise or fear when America, too, entered the fray. How can that be? Verbeek thinks it has to do with the shrewdness with which Israel has convinced Western countries that Iran is the great enemy.

Change in the region

Moderator Jansen brought the topic up to the purpose of the recent attacks on Israel. Trump keeps talking about a ‘regime change’ in Iran. However, Stel thinks that the US is less concerned about regime change in Iran than about regime change in the region as a whole. They want a hegemony of Israel and the US in the Middle East, imposed by military force. Verbeek agreed. He suspects that Saudi Arabia, for example, will be less likely to allow Israel's dominance in the region in the future, and will want to counterbalance it. And that is interesting to keep an eye on, as Saudi Arabia has big economic interests in keeping a good relationship with Israel's ally America.

Double standards

Through the impact of the attacks on trade in the region, the trio discussed Russia, the ally at war to which Iran supplies many weapons. Verbeek explained that Russia likes to make an impact in the Middle East. In the past, Russia has also played an important role in negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme. Russia would like to play that role again.

Stel added that Russia could use the situation to point out double standards: Western countries have problems with Russia invading Ukraine for no immediate reason, but they currently have little problem with Israel's attack on Iran. That these lines are drawn between these two wars is something Stel finds diplomatically very interesting. Verbeek agreed with her. He thinks that the double standard argument works especially well in the global south: why is one country allowed to get nuclear weapons, and not the other?

Diplomatic solutions?

Are diplomatic solutions still possible, asked discussion leader Jansen? Stel thinks negotiations are the only way forward. But she does see that the incentive for Iran to come to the table together has been diminished by the recent attacks. Verbeek agreed. He pointed out that Iran is now at least a little further away from a nuke. However, Stel is sceptical: Iran may have slowed down, but being able to defend itself nuclear is only becoming more attractive.

Announcement 

On June 13, 2025, the world was shocked by Israel's attack on Iran. In addition to complexes of the Iranian atomic program, leading scientists from the nuclear program and senior military officers were also targeted by the airstrikes. This was the beginning of missile attacks back and forth in which the U.S. also bombed Iran. Why is this happening, and why now? What are the implications for the region and for relations worldwide? Come listen to political scientist Bertjan Verbeek and Middle East expert Nora Stel and learn all about the backgrounds of this conflict.

Nuclear threat

Israel claimed the attack was necessary in self-defense, in view of an increased nuclear threat from Iran. Iran reacted furiously, claiming that a red line had been crossed with these attacks because diplomatic talks were also ongoing with America. Several days of missile attacks back and forth followed in which the big question was whether the U.S. would intervene. That happened on June 22. According to Trump, it was a great success, , a claim that experts say can hardly be verified.

Consequences for the world

What will happen next? The cease-fire was violated within hours. What does Israel want? What can Iran do? What will Trump do now that Israel does not do as he says? What could be the consequences for the already unstable situation in the region? What are the consequences for Gaza and Palestine? What impact is this going to have on global relations? What will we notice from this in the West? Bertjan Verbeek and Nora Stel will discuss these and other questions. Come and ask your own questions! 

The discussion will be in English.

About the speakers

Nora Stel is associate professor at Radboud University's Center for International Conflict Analysis & Management. She researches governance and politics in conflict zones. She focuses specifically on refugee policy in and vis-à-vis the Middle East, and on local governance in wartime. 

Bertjan Verbeek is professor of International Relations at Radboud University. He conducts research on (crisis) decision-making in foreign policy. Within this, he focuses on the influence of domestic politics on the foreign policy of states and on the role of international organizations during crises.Participation