Our Generation’s '67 Moment (& Where are We Heading from Here?)

Western leaders preferred to address the Iranian nuclear issue through an agreement, even though it is doubtful they truly believed this would stop the ayatollah regime. The diplomatic approach led by Western democracies essentially reflected an implicit assumption: that when facing an Islamist-ideological regime, the most one can do is buy time. Therefore, a short-term solution was needed, one that could be passed on the issue to the next elected leaders.

The Iranians operate on a completely different timeline and set of incentives. Their considerations are neither tactical nor political—since they don’t need to deliver achievements every four years to win elections—but are instead guided by a long-term, historical perspective rooted in a deep sense of themselves as a regional power. This made the West’s short-term, stopgap approach especially convenient for them.

However, the world is slowly beginning to grasp, as the German Chancellor put it: "Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us." The world is gaining appetite because it sees an opportunity to fundamentally address the Islamist regime in Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb — a challenge that was considered chronic, malignant, and incurable, only capable of being delayed. Thus, the door has opened even for international involvement, not only in the defense of Israel, but for something that serves the West itself. 

Iran is not a paper tiger, as some are retroactively trying to portray it. Iran is a regional power, but Israel’s brilliant strategy has managed to strike at its weak points and centers of gravity, throwing it off balance. Israel is redefining the modern battlefield - this was another “1967 moment,” the second in under a year.

And yet, the question of the endgame remains. There are three 'ideal' alternatives, and all of them are in doubt:

• The military option: Since American participation is not under Israel’s control, the question arises whether Israel alone can deal a serious blow to the nuclear facility in Fordo. Our assessment is that it can — but the costs would be very high.

• The diplomatic option: Could there be a “good” deal, meaning an Iranian surrender to save the regime? We argue that for this regime, honor is more important than survival — making this option unrealistic. A “bad” deal, however, is on the table — one that might materialize if the U.S. blinks first and chooses to avoid war.

• Regime change: As we wrote this week, this is a goal beyond Israel’s control. Its chances, in our view, are not high. Still, Israel must do everything it can to increase the probability of it happening — though it certainly cannot rely on this outcome.

• 
  

Therefore, the most likely scenario is a military operation in Fordow. From Israel’s (and the world’s) perspective, it would be better if the U.S. is involved. In any case, regardless of which alternative plays out, the Middle East has already been changed forever.

See our special war briefings: Special Briefing: Israel’s Strike on Iran (June 13, 2025) Toppling the Iranian Regime: A Possible Mission? (June 15, 2025)