Iranian protesters chant slogans as one of them holds up a poster of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an anti-Israeli gathering in Tehran, Iran, Friday, June 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
As of Thursday afternoon, the prevailing thought among most world leaders was that, while Israel was preparing for an assault on Iran, the attack was at least several days from occurring. White House envoy Steve Witkoff was getting ready for his sixth round of negotiations with his Iranian counterpart, and President Trump remained hopeful that a diplomatic solution to Iran’s escalating nuclear efforts was still possible.
That all changed early Friday morning when Israel launched the first of five “preemptive strikes” against Iran, with more to come. Israel’s primary target was the Natanz nuclear facility, though they also hit ballistic missiles depots and the country’s military and nuclear program leaders as well. Moreover, Mossad—Israel’s spy agency—reportedly carried out a number of covert attacks against Iran’s air defenses and missile facilities as well.
Three of Iran’s highest-ranking military officials—including Brig. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, the commander in chief of the Armed Forces and second only to the supreme leader—were killed in the strikes. As one Israeli defense official described, “If this opening strike succeeded, then what we did to senior Hezbollah officials over ten days, we did to Iran in ten minutes.”
A denuclearized Iran?
While the deaths of leading scientists and military figures played a prominent role in the attacks, the most significant target was the Natanz nuclear facility. It’s here that Iran produced the bulk of its nuclear fuel, including much of its near-bomb-grade fuel.
As of this writing, it appears Israel has destroyed multiple floors of the facility, though the full extent of the damage is still unknown. Natanz has been a target of both Israeli and US attacks for nearly twenty years and is seen as “the beating heart of the Iranian nuclear program.” However, experts warn that it may take days or even weeks to know the full scale of how far the nation’s nuclear capabilities have been set back.
Iran’s refusal to allow international inspectors to search several of its facilities and areas where they suspected the country was enriching uranium lends further credibility to Israel’s reports that the nation was approaching “the point of no return” and could not afford to wait any longer to attack. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described, “We can’t leave these threats for the next generation because if we don’t act now, there will not be another generation.”
While we cannot know the degree to which that sentiment reflects reality, Iran has shown a consistent unwillingness to limit its capabilities to what’s required for nuclear power despite repeated claims that they are not trying to build a nuclear bomb. Most seem to agree that Iran wanted the bomb and was unwilling to accept anything less.
Senator Tom Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed as much when he recently posted that “Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region, this cannot be allowed to happen.”
But if avoiding that fate was Israel’s primary goal, why not wait to see if it could be achieved diplomatically rather than risk an attack three days prior to the next—and final—round of scheduled negotiations?
What Israel really wants
For his part, President Trump hopes that the US and Iran can continue their negotiations, though he acknowledged that “There are several people in leadership that will not be coming back.” However, Iran announced early this morning that it wasn’t interested. And ending those talks may have been part of the motive behind Israel’s attack.
As Michael Oren describes, the last time Israel got this close to attacking Iran in 2012, it backed off to give President Obama time to address the problem through diplomacy. The results were a capped stockpile of uranium in exchange for maintaining the ability to develop advanced centrifuges and sanctions relief that the supreme leader used to build up his proxy network of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Now, faced with another round of negotiations in which Iran has reportedly been offered a similar array of incentives, it seems like Israel was not willing to take the chance that history would repeat itself. Combine that fear of the past with Iran’s weakened state, both at home and abroad, and the timing makes sense regardless of how close Iran was to a nuclear weapon.
None of that necessarily lessens the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose or calls into question the validity of Israel’s claims about how close they were to weaponizing that technology. But it’s worth noting that what may have seemed like a solution to the problem of Iran for America may not have been seen as progress for Israel. And that reality should inform the way we think and pray about this situation going forward.
A partner in prayer
One of the most difficult parts of responding to something as complex as the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is moving beyond our own thoughts and opinions. We know we should pray, but what do we pray for?
Are we supposed to pick a side and pray that they win? Would it be better to just pray that the Lord protects the innocent on both sides? Should we pray that God will bring a swift end to the conflict or that it will continue for as long as necessary for some good to come from it?
To be honest, I don’t know how to answer those questions. Fortunately, I don’t have to (and neither do you).
You see, the best place to start our prayers—whether it be for a situation as complex as the war between Israel and Iran or as simple as a friend who is struggling—is by asking God how we should pray.
He knows what people need, and he knows how he is planning to redeem the evil around us to bring some measure of good from it. But if we start by just launching into our opinions and asking God to accomplish what seems best to us, then we may miss the greater good of what he is planning to do. And when that happens, not only are our prayers rendered less effective, but we are likely to miss out on our chance to play a role in that redemption.
So, before you start interceding for the conflict in the Middle East—or a situation much closer to home—take some time to ask God to show you how to pray. And then commit to simply listening to what he has to say.
God wants to be your partner in prayer, not just the audience for your prayers.
Will you give him that chance today?
Quote of the day:
“You can do more than pray after you have prayed; but you can never do more than pray until you have prayed.” —A. J. Gordon
Our latest website resources:
Search
