Israel’s Attack on Iran and Ongoing Conflict
A CRS Report
A useful summary by the Congressional Research Service:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13032?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22iran%22%7D&s=1&r=2
Israel’s Attack on Iran and Ongoing Conflict
On June 13, 2025, Israel began a major military operation
against Iran, including air strikes and reported covert action.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue
attacks for “as many days as it takes,” targeting what he
termed “existential” threats posed by Iran’s nuclear
program and ballistic missiles. Iran’s foreign minister
described Israel’s attack as a “declaration of war” in a letter
to the United Nations. Iran has retaliated by launching
hundreds of ballistic missiles against Israel amid continued
Israeli airstrikes across Iran and international calls for de-
escalation.
Israeli attacks reportedly have degraded Iranian air defenses
and some missile bases, killed a number of high-level
Iranian military and government officials and nuclear
scientists, and struck some nuclear sites, government
buildings, energy facilities, and other targets across the
country (see Figure 1). Strikes and other attacks have
reportedly killed over 200 in Iran as of June 15 and 24 in
Israel as of June 16. The U.S. military is reportedly helping
Israel intercept Iranian missiles in the ongoing conflict, as it
did during Iran’s April and October 2024 drone and missile
attacks. President Trump reportedly has directed additional
U.S. air and naval assets toward the region. Israel has
procured most of its fighter aircraft and large munitions
from U.S. suppliers, financed to date by more than $3
billion of U.S. aid annually.
Figure 1. Reported Israel-Iran Strikes
As of June 16, 2025
Source: New York Times. Red points represent strike locations. All
areas and notations are approximate and subject to revision and
updates.
Congressional and Administration
Responses
President Donald Trump said he was aware of the Israeli
plans beforehand and supports Israel, and alluded to “more
to come” on June 13. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated
at the outset of the Israeli attack that the United States was
“not involved” in the strikes. Prior to the strikes, President
Trump expressed a preference for a negotiated rather than
military solution. President Trump posted on Truth Social
that Israel’s attacks came at the end of the 60-day deadline
he set for U.S.-Iran negotiations to reach a deal when they
began in mid-April, and told a reporter the attack might
compel Iran to reach an agreement with the United States.
Iran canceled a sixth round of talks, previously scheduled
for June 15.
President Trump said on June 15 that that the United States
is “not at this moment involved” but could be. He has
continued to state his hope for a deal on the nuclear issue
but noted Israel and Iran may “have to fight it out,” and
stated openness to potential Israel-Iran mediation by Russia.
With Israeli analysts reportedly assessing that Israel has hit
only a portion of Iran’s nuclear program, some reports
indicate that Israel may have asked U.S. officials for
participation in an operation against Iran’s deep
underground enrichment facility at Fordow.
Some Members of Congress expressed support for Israel’s
actions and called the operation “understandable and
justified.” Others called the strike “alarming” and
“reckless” and expressed concern about possible escalation.
On June 16, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a joint
resolution directing the President to “terminate the use of
United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the
Islamic Republic of Iran … unless explicitly authorized by
a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of
military force against Iran.” Congress passed a similar
resolution after the January 2020 U.S. strike that killed
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-
QF) Commander Qasem Soleimani; President Trump
vetoed that 2020 resolution and a Senate vote to overturn
the veto failed of passage.
Historical Background
During Prime Minister Netanyahu’s tenure after 2009,
Israel has threatened multiple times to act militarily to
destroy or set back Iran’s nuclear program. Israel, which for
decades has presumably maintained a nuclear arsenal but
has not officially acknowledged it, has taken preemptive
action against nuclear programs in the region—destroying
an Iraqi facility in 1981 and a Syrian one in 2007. In the
2010s, Israel apparently executed a number of covert
actions against Iranian facilities and personnel to disrupt
and delay the program. Alongside U.S. sanctions on Iranian
oil exports, the Obama Administration led international
efforts to reach a 2015 agreement (Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action, or JCPOA), which placed new physical
constraints, as well as inspection and monitoring
provisions, on Iran’s nuclear program. In 2018, President
Trump (with strong support from Netanyahu) ended U.S.
participation in the JCPOA, citing what he described as the
accord’s defects, and increased sanctions on Iran.
Israel’s Attack on Iran and Ongoing Conflict
Approximately a year later, Iran began nuclear activities
that exceeded limits set forth in the JCPOA.
Hamas-led attacks on Israel in 2023 were followed by
broader regional conflict between Israel and Iran’s “axis of
resistance.” Direct clashes between Israel and Iran in April
and October 2024 and Israel’s large-scale degradation of
Hezbollah (a key Iranian ally) in Lebanon prompted serious
discussion in Israel about whether and when to act against
Iran’s nuclear program. Having seemingly mostly
neutralized Hezbollah’s missile threat and ostensibly
weakened Iran’s air defenses and ballistic missile
production capacity, Israeli leaders reportedly explored
plans, including with U.S. counterparts, to strike Iran’s
nuclear program amid increasingly public discussion in Iran
of the once-taboo subject of weaponization. Some of
President Trump’s public comments discouraged attacks
while U.S. officials engaged in diplomacy with Iran after
April 2025.
Iran: Impact and Possible Responses
Leadership. According to Israeli claims and other reports,
major Iranian figures killed or injured in the Israeli attack
may include its military chief of staff; the commanders of
the IRGC, IRGC Air Force, IRGC-Quds Force, and IRGC-
Intelligence Organization; an advisor to Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with responsibility for nuclear
negotiations; and at least 10 senior nuclear scientists.
Iran’s regime. Israel’s assault could inspire Iranians to rally
around a government that has faced popular protests in
recent years, or could contribute to political instability.
Netanyahu said that regime change could be an outcome of
Israeli operations. Israel reportedly refrained from a
possible opportunity to kill Supreme Leader Khamenei
because of opposition from President Trump. Netanyahu
declined to discuss the report.
Nuclear program. The impact on Iran’s nuclear program
may depend on what remains of Iran’s enriched uranium
stockpiles, accumulated technical knowledge, or other
elements of its nuclear program—parts of which are
underground and may be less vulnerable to aerial attacks.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director
General reported on June 16 that strikes had “destroyed the
above-ground part” of a uranium enrichment facility at
Natanz and damaged the Isfahan nuclear site; he also
reported that no “damage has been seen” at Fordow, amid
some reported attacks near the facility. Iran could pull out
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iranian
officials had recently threatened to do) and/or accelerate
efforts to develop a nuclear weapon to deter or threaten
Israel and other adversaries. In March 2025, U.S. officials
restated their assessment that Iran does not have a nuclear
weapons program, but that added “Iran’s enriched uranium
stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a
state without nuclear weapons.”
Military responses. It is unclear what additional capabilities
Iran might seek to use against Israel. In June 10 House
Armed Services Committee testimony, U.S. Central
Command Commander General Michael Kurilla said that a
U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system was
defending Israel from ballistic missile threats. Iran or its
partners could attack U.S. regional installations, having on
June 11 reiterated longstanding threats to do so. Iran’s
foreign minister said that the June 13 attack “could not have
been carried out without the coordination and authorization
of the United States.” Secretary Rubio warned Iran not to
target U.S. interests or personnel, some of whom may have
started departing the region before the Israeli attacks. Such
attacks, or Iranian moves to close the Strait of Hormuz or
otherwise disrupt global energy markets, could trigger
direct U.S. responses. It is unclear whether Iran’s apparent
loss of senior military leaders and the damage to weapons
and infrastructure could affect its ability to coordinate
military attacks. The Wall Street Journal reported on June
16 that Iran has signaled interest in ending hostilities and
returning to negotiations as long as the United States does
not join attacks on Iran.
Regional and International Reactions
The Gulf Cooperation Council (comprising several Arab
states) said that Israel’s actions violate international law,
and called for concerted international efforts to stop Israel’s
“aggression” and avoid escalation. Russia and the People’s
Republic of China also strongly criticized Israel’s attack.
Considerations for Congress
In engaging executive branch officials, shaping legislative
responses to recent developments, and conducting
oversight, Congress could consider the following questions:
• What immediate effect could the conflict have on U.S.
citizens and personnel? What, if anything, should the
U.S. government do to assist U.S. citizens in the region?
How may the conflict affect regional and global security
and commerce?
• How has fighting so far affected Iran’s nuclear program,
military capabilities, and government stability? How
have Iranian strikes affected Israel and what has been
the U.S. role in combatting them?
• What military responses might Iran consider taking
against U.S. personnel and installations? Against U.S.
partners? Under what circumstances might the U.S.
military become more involved in the conflict?
• How likely are Iranian leaders to attempt to move closer
to acquiring nuclear weapons in response? What are the
prospects for U.S.-Iran nuclear talks?
• How might fighting between Israel and Iran affect the
regional balance of power, great power competition, and
U.S. capacity to pursue its strategic priorities in the
Indo-Pacific, Europe, and elsewhere?
To support, reject, or modify the Administration’s approach
to developments, Congress may consider action concerning
military assistance, arms sales, sanctions, defense
appropriations, authorization of use of military force,
diplomacy and negotiated agreements, and oversight of the
Administration’s past and ongoing policies and programs.
Clayton Thomas, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Jim Zanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
IF13032
Israel’s Attack on Iran and Ongoing Conflict
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF13032 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder.