Israel’s devastating attack on Iran has put the Islamic Republic in existential peril and exposed deep vulnerabilities in the intelligence services that have kept Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in power for nearly four decades.

       Tehran fired dozens of ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv Friday after Israeli warplanes carried out waves of strikes across Iran a day earlier, targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and killing several of its highest-ranking commanders and senior scientists.

       Unlock Premium Insights from The Wall Street Journal

       Take your experience further with Mint Premium- access insights and analysis on global markets

       Subscribe now Already subscribed? Login

       Premium benefits

       40+ Premium Articles Daily

       WSJ, Economist, Barron's Access

       E-paper Access

       Explainers & Deep Dives

       Stock Analysis & Investment Insights

       Mint Lounge & Beyond

       WASHINGTON—The first act of “Les Misérables" had just ended at the Kennedy Center Wednesday night when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) pulled President Trump aside for a quick conversation about Iran.

       Graham applauded the Trump administration’s handling of the nuclear issue without people getting killed.

       “Yeah, we’re trying," Trump said about the sputtering negotiations with Tehran. “But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do," he said.

       Graham took that remark to mean Trump was referring to the possibility of an Israeli strike on its longtime enemy.

       The encounter came midway through a week that would see Trump go from trying to head off an Israeli attack to backing its sudden campaign of airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and senior military civilian leaders, an abrupt shift he executed after Israel spurned his appeal to delay its military operation.

       Trump said Friday that he had been aware of Israel’s attack plans and argued that the punishing operation make a nuclear deal even more likely, though Iran said they were pulling out of a sixth round of talks scheduled for Sunday.

       “They should have made a deal and they still can make a deal while they have something left—they still can," Trump told the Journal.

       Trump had seemed far less optimistic earlier in the week.

       On Sunday, he summoned his national security team to Camp David and told them during a discussion on the Middle East that he was increasingly pessimistic Tehran would agree to a deal, according to U.S. officials.

       Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were due to speak the next day, and the president said he would tell the Israeli leader to delay any attacks until special envoy Steve Witkoff’s diplomatic effort had run its course, U.S. officials recounted.

       In a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in March, Trump had set a two-month time limit once talks got under way to reach a deal, a deadline that was due to expire this week. But Khamenei rejected a U.S. proposal to allow Iran to temporarily continue uranium enrichment in the country if it agreed to eventually halt its domestic centrifuge operation.

       Always in the background was Netanyahu’s push to launch strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, a threat that loomed ever larger.

       In a call Monday with Netanyahu, Trump said he wanted to see diplomacy with Tehran play out a little longer, according to U.S. officials. But even Trump was losing faith in his strategy.

       Netanyahu raised his oft-expressed objection that Iran wouldn’t make the deal Trump wanted and that Israel needed to keep preparing strikes, the officials added.

       Trump seemed to internalize the message.

       “I’m getting more and more—less confident about it," he said of the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran in a New York Post interview published Wednesday. “They seem to be delaying, and I think that is a shame, but I’m less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago."

       Netanyahu had been seeking to head off a U.S.-led negotiation with Iran over its nuclear program for years, arguing that only the destruction of its vast enrichment centrifuges and other facilities could guarantee Tehran wasn’t secretly developing a bomb.

       The Israeli leader rejoiced when Trump in his first term tore up the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by then President Barack Obama, and he recoiled when Trump pushed for a tougher agreement during his second term in office.

       U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January that Israel was considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The intelligence analysis concluded Israel would push Trump’s new team to back the assault, viewing the incoming president as more likely to join an attack than former President Joe Biden. The Israelis, according to the assessment, believed the window for halting Tehran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon was closing.

       In a sign of mounting concern about an Israeli attack and Iranian response, the State Department on Wednesday ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and authorized the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. At the same time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from across the Middle East.

       Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, canceled a congressional testimony scheduled for the next day and returned to Central Command’s headquarters in Tampa.

       As anxiety grew in the Middle East and Washington, Trump was enjoying the performance of his favorite musical at the Kennedy Center, joined by Graham and other supporters.

       When Trump and Netanyahu spoke again on Thursday, the Israeli leader told Trump that it was the last day of his 60-day timeline for Iran to make a deal. Israel could wait no longer, Netanyahu said, according to officials familiar with the call. Israel had to defend itself and enforce the deadline Trump himself had set.

       Trump responded that the U.S. wouldn’t stand in the way, according to administration officials, but emphasized that the U.S. military wouldn’t assist with any offensive operations.

       At the White House, Trump told reporters he wouldn’t describe an attack as imminent, “but it is something that could very well happen." While the U.S. and Iran were close to a deal, he claimed, Israeli strikes could “blow it."

       Israel launched its operation as Trump was at a picnic Thursday evening on the White House grounds for members of Congress. He later joined Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Hegseth, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and other senior officials in the Situation Room to monitor events.

       Israel had acted unilaterally and the U.S. played no role in the attack, Rubio said in a statement that acknowledged Israel notified Washington before the operation began.

       That was the only comment from the U.S. as the attack unfolded. Bombs struck and damaged a key Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, and senior military leaders including Major Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, were killed.

       In all, Iran claimed that Israel’s first attack killed 78 people and injured around 320 more in multiple waves of Israeli strikes. Netanyahu pledged that the operation would last for as long as necessary.

       Trump, who began the week resistant to an assault on Iran, quickly embraced it as a successful campaign that could boost his diplomatic effort.

       “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left," he posted on social media Friday, “and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire."

       Write to Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com, Meridith McGraw at Meridith.McGraw@WSJ.com and Anat Peled at anat.peled@wsj.com

       As tensions escalate following Israeli strikes on Iran, fears rise that Tehran could choke the Strait of Hormuz. However, patterns in history indicate that while there might be temporary disruption in maritime traffic, Iran might refrain from choking the Strait of Hormuz, as it will pinch its friends more than its enemies.

       Mint explains why the Strait of Hormuz is significant geopolitically, and economically and what it means for India and Iran-US talks.

       Why is the Strait of Hormuz significant geopolitically and economically?

       The Strait of Hormuz is significant for its strategic location. It lies between Oman and Iran, linking the sea passage from the countries on the Gulf (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) with the Arabian Sea and beyond.

       The strait is only 33 km wide at its narrowest point. According to available statistics, it sees roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil, and oil products shipments, and accounts for nearly one-fifth of global oil shipments. Further, one-third of the world's liquified natural gas LNG passes through the route.

       The maritime sea lanes, as the critical outlet for Gulf countries, are watched by the US Navy's Fifth Fleet based in Manama, Bahrain. The Strait of Hormuz is the vital oil artery for the world, and any disruptions, or even temporary closure, will send global oil shocks across the world.

       Also Read: India concerned about crude oil supply disruptions in Strait of Hormuz

       Will Tehran, or can Tehran, actually shut the Strait of Hormuz?

       With the Israeli air strikes on its military and nuclear establishments, Tehran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz. But will it do so? Or is Iran using Hormuz as bargaining chip that leverages the fears of global oil shock and oil vulnerability of its friends, and enemies alike? While there could be some disruption- Iran might actually refrain from a full-scale blockade.

       There are three significant reasons why Iran might not actually do so, even while signalling that it might do so rhetorically. First, it will hurt Iran’s friend, China, the world second-largest economy, and Iran’s largest trading partner. China, is number one importer of oil, accounting for nearly three quarter of its oil export.

       So China, will not like to see any disruption in its maritime oil shipments, and might actually use its economic leverage with Iran to prevent Iran from closure of the narrow lane.

       Second, it will rupture Iran's relationship with Oman (which owns the southern half of the strait) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC States). With Oman, careful crafting of a relationship has resulted in greater dependency for Iran on a wide range of issues.

       Further, Oman has been a strong advocate of freedom of navigation in the sea passage. On the other hand, while there has been a history of difficult relationships between GCC states, in the recent past, there has been a détente of sorts, and Iran risks a fallout if it were to close the Strait of Hormuz.

       Third, domestically this might not work for the interest of the regime, as any economic hits or closure of its oil exporting terminal, will see a surge in prices, and fuel popular discontent, which might impact both regime stability, and reformist tendencies for President Masoud Pezeshkian.

       Also Read: Javier Blas: An Israel-Iran war may not rattle the oil market

       Where does this leave US-Iran talk?

       The US is giving clear indications that it will attend Sunday’s talks with Iran in Oman with a focus on limiting Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb- a move that Iran has vehemently resisted.

       While the US claims it has no role or remains unaware of Israel's strikes on Tehran, the timing of the strikes raises a pertinent question. This comes just before the crucial 15 June talks between the US and Iran in Oman.

       While the US and Trump deny any role, it remains doubtful that Netanyahu and Israel would act without a green signal from the US. So, it seems the attacks serve a dual purpose, for the US, it pushes Tehran to re-engage in talks with the US that it has put on the slow burner in the past few weeks.

       For Israel, a tacit US support in any case works, given it sees Iran, and its nuclear programme as an existential threat. Further, Netanyahu, would anyway want to see the collapse of the deal between US and Iran, and has for the longest time opposed it.

       However, despite strategic denials by the US, the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, and the reported wounding of one of its negotiators many actually convince a anyways belligerent to Iran, to walk down the path towards a nuclear weapon to build its own nuclear deterrence.

       Will China rein in Iran?

       In the recent past, China has strategically drawn in Iran into the Belt and Road Initiative, which Tehran joined in 2019. China has been working to build new connectivity opportunities, for instance, railway projects for Iran that serve two significant aims: first, it provides opportunities for bringing in Central Asian countries and Iran into the connectivity matrix. And second, it helps counter US hegemony, and can offset the US sanctions that are imposed time and again.

       In the moment of the current crisis, if Hormuz is choked, China will be hit, given it’s the largest exporter of Iranian Oil. So China, might actually reign in Iran, given its impending economic interest, and disruption in global oil supply chain, will impede its own economic interest first and foremost.

       Also Read | Israel's war on Iran to hit Indian workforce

       What will this mean for India?

       For India, over two-thirds of its oil imports and nearly half of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports transit through the Strait of Hormuz. This surely puts India in a tight spot, given that any disruption in the global supply chain will hit India, particularly in the LNG sector—given that it imports a major chunk of its LNG from Qatar and UAE.

       According to available reports, January-November 2024, India imported 9.82 million tonnes of LNG from Qatar, which accounted for 38.8 per cent of India’s overall LNG imports.

       So, a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a chunk of LNG exported by Qatar and the UAE passes, will hit countries like India. Further, in the recent past, India has strengthened strategic ties with Israel, particularly in the sectors of defence, intelligence, and technology. For India, it is tightrope walk, given the need to do a balancing act between Israel and Iran.

       Further in terms of India’s connectivity interest, both Chabahar port and IMEC corridor anyway stand in a freeze mode, given the ever-growing tensions between Israel and Iran.

       Shweta Singh is an associate professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of International Studies, South Asian University.