The war, which entered its fourth day on Monday, has stoked fear on both sides about what the future might hold, Northeastern professors say.
Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on Friday was both an opportunity, with Iran’s proxies sidelined, and “a massive gamble” that set in motion a war with profound consequences for both nations, Northeastern University observers say.
Operation Rising Lion, as it’s been called, began shortly after midnight on June 13 when the Israeli military struck more than 100 nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing hundreds of Iranians, including several military leaders. Iran responded with a series of retaliatory strikes on Israel that have resulted in 24 Israeli deaths.
The war, which entered its fourth day on Monday, has stoked fear on both sides about what the future might hold.
“People are afraid,” says Simon Rabinovitch, Stotsky Professor in Jewish Historical and Cultural Studies at Northeastern, about the Iranian response. “These are ballistic missiles that are being launched toward population centers seemingly indiscriminately, and some are making it through and doing tremendous damage.”
Rabinovitch says the timing of Israel’s air campaign in Iran appears to be strategic, as Hezbollah — a Lebanese militant group and key Iranian ally that has been battling Israel over the past year — seems to be staying out of the conflict, likely out of fear of sparking a wider war. For its part, Israel says it is targeting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, with the goal of ultimately preventing it from acquiring an atomic bomb.
“[Israelis] feel very intimately that they have been living with an Iranian threat for decades,” Rabinovitch says. “And now that Iran has lost some of its proxies, there is much more incentive for Iran to escalate its nuclear program. So, there is a lot of fear — and, in my opinion, very legitimate fear.”
In Iran, the picture is complex. While the Iranian regime is “widely seen as oppressive, economically disastrous and out of touch with the needs of ordinary people,” strikes by a foreign nation on home soil may paradoxically generate support and bolster hardliners, says Hossein Dabbagh, an assistant professor in applied ethics on Northeastern’s London campus who has written at length about Iranian civil society.
“That’s a very dangerous dynamic,” says Dabbagh, who is Iranian.
Since Israel’s war in Gaza, which has been underway for more than a year and half, there’s been “a stark shift” in sentiment among academics, students and activists in Iran toward the view that the Israeli government has “clearly violated humanitarian norms,” Dabbagh says.
Although there is broad support for diplomacy and dialogue on the ground, Israel’s attacks have sparked outrage in Iran.
“The feeling on the ground is one of helplessness and heartbreak,” Dabbagh says. “Yes, many Iranians hold their own government responsible for decades of corruption, repression and international isolation. But that doesn’t mean they accept or excuse Israel’s aggression — apart from those who openly supported the strikes.”
He continues: “When bombs fall on cities like Tehran, Isfahan or Tabriz — on civilian infrastructure, on homes — and when children are killed, it’s very hard for people to see this as anything but an unlawful and disproportionate aggression.”
The backdrop to the escalation between Israel and Iran is Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, which has been underway since Oct. 7, 2023. Rabinovitch says that “solid majorities have shown that Israelis want the war in Gaza to end,” noting that public opinion in the wake of Oct. 7 has generally supported negotiations over hostages rather than outright conflict. At the same time, Israelis have become increasingly skeptical about the prospects for a shared peace in the region, according to the latest Pew Research data.
But while the war in Gaza may not be a winning issue for Israelis, “neutralizing Iran and its proxies,” on the other hand, might be, Rabinovitch says.
“There’s a perception among civilian leadership in Israel that there was a closing window of opportunity here,” Rabinovitch says. “And the opportunity was presented essentially by the disabling of Iran’s proxies, or the knowledge that Hezbollah won’t have an ability to join in — and that clearly [President] Trump has given some kind of green light.”
Just how much support Israel is receiving from the Trump administration remains unclear. The U.S. has said it is assisting Israel in intercepting incoming missiles in Israel, where many Americans are living.
The U.S. had been engaged in a series of talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran over a peace agreement whose aim was to stop Iran from enriching uranium and boosting its nuclear capability. When a 60-day window to reach an agreement on nuclear proliferation expired, Israel initiated the strikes.
“My reading of the situation is that a decision had been made in the Trump administration to allow Israel to fight this war while being clear that it is fighting this on its own,” Rabinovitch says.
“The best-case scenario is that both sides run through their respective targets and arsenals — that Israel runs through everything it wants to hit, and Iran runs through its ability to reply — and then something else happens,” Rabinovitch says. “One hopes that the ‘something else’ isn’t a ground war or a regional conflict, but some kind of diplomatic settlement.”
One theory that has been circulating is that Israel, by attacking Iran, is seeking regime change. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News over the weekend that the Iranian regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is “very weak,” and could be toppled as a result of the Israeli attack.
“We are changing the face of the Middle East, and this could lead to far-reaching changes within Iran itself,” Netanyahu said, according to the New York Times.
But both Rabinovitch and Dabbagh expressed doubt at that prospect.
“I’m very dubious about whether it would mean the end of the Iranian regime,” Rabinovitch says.
“The Iranian people want change, but not through this kind of violence,” Dabbagh says. “If anything, these attacks complicate the democratic aspirations of many Iranians. They cast opposition voices as aligned with foreign enemies, when in fact most of us are simply calling for accountability, freedom and a future grounded in justice — not revenge.”