On June 13, a serious armed conflict broke out between Israel and Iran, with signs of further escalation, causing a global shock. According to the latest reports, after the United States directly intervened and launched airstrikes against Iran, a new round of bombings was initiated by both Iran and Israel. At the same time, the Houthi forces also began launching missile attacks on Israel. The scale of this current Israel-Iran conflict far exceeds that of past clashes, and it is essentially a full-scale war. The final scale of the conflict may surpass even NATO’s airstrike campaign during the Kosovo War. This marks a near-total eruption of the long-standing religious and geopolitical tensions between Iran and Israel since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The geopolitical rivalry among the U.S., Iran, and Israel has reached a boiling point. From Israel’s perspective, Iran is currently in an unprecedentedly weakened state, and the Iran-led "Axis of Resistance" is on the verge of collapse. Israel hopes to take this opportunity to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its capacity for strategic retaliation. By launching a “decapitation strike”, Israel aims to cripple the command system of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and inflict maximum damage on Iran’s military forces. Moreover, prolonged external conflicts have pushed Israel’s political and economic situation into deep crisis. The Netanyahu government, heavily reliant on far-right support, is in urgent need of a successful military operation to eliminate the Iranian military threat and stabilize the domestic situation.
The core of information analysis lies in continuously tracking and researching developments, with a particular focus on changes in key situational signals. Unlike many other geopolitical conflicts, due to geographical positioning, Iran and Israel cannot avoid direct confrontation in the Middle East. The power blocs of both sides are adjacent along their borders, leading to close-quarters engagements and prolonged, ongoing conflict. For a long time, Israel had been under persistent rocket attacks from Hezbollah in Syria and Hamas in Gaza, both supported by Iran. In response, Israel was compelled to develop the unique Iron Dome air defense system. Later, the Hamas militant group launched a large-scale direct attack on Israeli territory, killing and kidnapping a large number of Israeli civilians. This marked the beginning of a full-scale war between Israel and Hamas, which has only continued to escalate. This situation has, in turn, created a strategic opportunity for Israel to potentially dismantle Iranian influence in the Middle East once and for all.
Since the outbreak of the Hamas-Israel conflict in 2023, ANBOUND has maintained a continuous focus on the situation in the Middle East. Years ago, ANBOUND had already concluded that, due to Israel's war-driven culture and historical memory, the country would absolutely never accept Iran possessing nuclear weapons capable of completely destroying the Israeli state. As a result, ANBOUND’s team of geopolitical experts has closely monitored developments surrounding Iran’s nuclear issue, consistently regarding it as a major war risk, and therefore tracking and analyzing it accordingly.
Several months ago, during the course of its information tracking, ANBOUND's research team was the first to discover that Iran's nuclear facilities had expanded to more than twenty locations. This discovery was highly relevant to the strategic deployment of war and would significantly influence the potential form of conflict. The findings were published on the Chinese-language version of the “100+” platform in a special report. At that time, based on fundamental calculations, ANBOUND's research team had already clearly concluded that any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would take the form of a large-scale air campaign.
The next key question is: when will this aerial campaign take place?
Information tracking indicates that after the third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks on April 12, U.S. negotiator and special envoy for Middle East affairs, Steve Witkoff, stated in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the Trump administration’s red line was Iran acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons. Any agreement that allows Iran’s nuclear program to continue in some form would be seen as a concession by the U.S. and would not satisfy Israel’s demands. Just a few days later, on April 16, Israel signaled that it was planning to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in May with the goal of delaying Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by a year or more. Israel also expressed its hope that the U.S. would support and help carry out this plan. At that time, although the U.S. reiterated that it did not support Iran developing nuclear weapons, it also made it clear that it did not support Israel striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. In fact, not only was the Trump administration highly hesitant about the use of force, but even during the Biden administration, the U.S. repeatedly tried to prevent Israel from launching military action. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made constant trips to the Middle East in an effort to de-escalate tensions. The discord between the U.S. and Israel was to the point where former President Joe Biden even went so far as to angrily call Netanyahu a “son of a bitch” privately.
On April 20, Reuters quoted Israeli officials and informed sources, reporting that Israel had long since secretly formulated plans to attack Iran and had begun training its fighter jet units. Some of these plans had already been submitted to the Biden administration as early as last year. According to the reports, nearly all of these plans required extensive support from the U.S., either through direct military intervention or intelligence sharing. Israel also requested that Washington assist in its self-defense in the event of Iranian retaliation. In fact, throughout the month of April, Israel continuously and publicly reiterated that it had not abandoned its plan to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that May was the most likely time for such an operation to be launched. However, due to the lack of U.S. support for military action and Washington’s insistence on continuing nuclear negotiations with Iran, Israel exercised restraint. All of this information was publicly available and drawn from open sources. The key challenge lies in the ability of information analysts to detect such signals within the vast sea of data, and to make timely analytical judgments to define the likely direction and scale of action.
From an information perspective, the pattern of “positive statements from the U.S., negative ones from Iran” characterized nearly the entire month of May regarding the progress of nuclear negotiations. On May 11, the U.S. and Iran concluded the fourth round of nuclear talks. Although no breakthrough was achieved on the key issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment, both sides expressed “cautious optimism” and confirmed that further negotiations would continue. However, tensions remained high, with both sides essentially “talking while preparing for conflict”. The U.S. State Department issued a statement announcing new sanctions on Iran, emphasizing that while negotiating with Tehran, it would continue to maintain its maximum pressure strategy. In response, Iran reacted strongly, repeatedly asserting that it would not abandon uranium enrichment under any circumstances.
U.S. President Donald Trump naturally wanted to present the resolution of the Iran nuclear issue as a personal political victory, something the Democrats failed to achieve, thereby satisfying his performative persona. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, however, overestimated Trump’s willingness to pursue peace talks, forgetting that the Israelis could just as easily provide an alternative way to satisfy Trump’s need for drama and public performance. By May, U.S.-Iran rhetoric had escalated sharply. Khamenei openly denounced Trump’s push for peace as a “lie”, and demanded that the U.S. stop interfering in the Middle East. Trump, in turn, warned Iran to respond quickly to the nuclear deal, or else “something bad will happen”, a clear implication of potential military action.
Then, a critical signal emerged.
Researchers at ANBOUND once again issued a clear forecast on the “100+” high-level discussion platform: “Iran’s nuclear activity has made significant progress and is now in the stage of nuclear implosion testing. It has carried out multiple nuclear implosion tests at several locations, indicating that the country is very close to successfully developing and possessing nuclear weapons. One could even say it is only one step away from an actual nuclear explosion test”. In other words, the final moment of reckoning for Israel had arrived: either accept the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran, or take decisive action to eliminate it completely.
Less than two days apart, Israel decisively launched a large-scale aerial strike operation, codenamed Rising Lion. As previously predicted and analyzed, this operation was, through and through, a full-scale aerial campaign. Dozens, even over a hundred Israeli fighter jets participated in the assault, conducting strikes and bombings on dozens of targets across Iran, effectively flattening Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Information analysis has always been the foundational methodology for policy research at ANBOUND. Relying on its original theoretical framework of information analysis, ANBOUND has conducted in-depth mining and systematic analysis of developments in the Middle East, particularly concerning U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations and Israeli actions. At the same time, ANBOUND has continuously tracked events and released updates through the “100+” platform. From anticipating Israel’s intent to strike in April, to analyzing the reasons for delays in May, to accurately predicting the necessity of a large-scale aerial campaign, and finally identifying the critical moment when the operation was launched, this chain of interconnected analysis and sustained tracking has enabled ANBOUND to maintain a high degree of precision in its forecasting and assessments of global issues. Only this kind of research offers truly valuable insight into the outbreak and trajectory of the Iran-Israel conflict.
The recent intervention by the U.S. Air Force, i.e., airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, marks a significant escalation in the Iran-Israel conflict that has intensified since mid-June. ANBOUND’s founder Kung Chan has identified several key areas of concern. First, there is the potential for nuclear leakage following the bombings. Second, Iran is likely to retaliate, possibly targeting U.S. military bases in Iraq. Third, the maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz might be threatened. Fourth, Iran might strike Israeli nuclear facilities. Finally, there is the heightened danger of terrorist attacks against American citizens, businesses, and interests worldwide.
Kung Chan believes that, from Israel’s perspective, the most effective way to eliminate the threat posed by Iran may ultimately lie in the physical elimination of Supreme Leader Khamenei and his designated successor. However, this approach faces significant challenges due to the long implementation cycle, giving Iran ample time to prepare. As long as Khamenei’s regime remains in power, true peace between Israel and Iran will be unattainable, and lasting stability will remain elusive not only for Israel and the Middle East but also for the U.S.
Final analysis conclusion:
Since the outbreak of the Hamas-Israel conflict in 2023, ANBOUND has maintained a sustained focus on developments in the Middle East. Leveraging its original theoretical framework of information analysis, ANBOUND has conducted in-depth and systematic research on key issues such as U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations and Israeli strategic movements, and accurately predicted the outbreak of the Iran-Israel conflict even before it began. This was just one of many successful forecasts made by ANBOUND.
_____________
He Yan is a researcher at ANBOUND, an independent think tank.
