The Everywhere Insiders 4: Israel’s Covert Strike in Iran and Global Security Trends

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/19

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she holds the position of Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee. Tsukerman discusses Israel’s covert strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Austria’s school shooting, India’s Metabot plane crash amid sabotage suspicions, and U.S. consumer sentiment trends, while analyzing Elon Musk’s pragmatic reconciliation with Trump and his controversial ties with Russia. This interview was conducted on June 13, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, I am delighted to have Irina Tsukerman, an American attorney and geopolitical analyst specializing in national security, human rights, and energy law. So, let us discuss Israel — we are recording this on June 13. All sources for today’s discussion are from Reuters. Other commentary exists, but our primary source today is Reuters.

Recently, Israel reportedly conducted strikes inside Iran amid ongoing nuclear tensions, resulting in the deaths of senior military figures. There has been widespread commentary about this development. What are your thoughts on the strike itself and the broader commentary?

Irina Tsukerman: This operation reflects years of strategic planning and intelligence gathering. While it is not accurate to say it was twenty years in preparation in a literal sense, Israel has long maintained contingency plans for striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and related assets. The decision to carry out such an operation always depends on a combination of intelligence assessments, regional circumstances, and political considerations.

What triggered this specific strike appears to be a convergence of factors: credible intelligence that Iran’s nuclear program has made substantial progress — with enriched uranium stockpiles exceeding the limits set by the now-defunct JCPOA (the nuclear deal) — and persistent concerns that Tehran could reach weapons-grade capability sooner than previously estimated. These assessments were corroborated not only by Israeli sources but also by international monitoring agencies like the IAEA, which confirmed that Iran’s uranium enrichment levels had again surpassed the agreed thresholds.

Diplomacy has stalled for years, both under the Trump administration, which withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, and under subsequent efforts to revive talks, which have repeatedly broken down amid Iranian intransigence and regional tensions. Iran has rejected proposals it considers insufficient and has advanced its nuclear work despite negotiations.

The U.S., including under the current administration, has consistently urged restraint, preferring to avoid escalation and keep the diplomatic window open. However, Israel viewed this moment as an inflection point: the combination of alarming intelligence, continued Iranian defiance, and a shifting regional security picture made them calculate that a limited, precise strike could delay Iran’s military capabilities without provoking full-scale war.

Reports indicate that Israel informed the U.S. in advance and asked for deconfliction measures to avoid accidental clashes with American assets in the region. For the White House, while this was an unwelcome escalation, it arguably provides leverage by putting additional pressure on Tehran without direct U.S. involvement.

As for the operational side, the risk of failure was minimized by extensive infiltration and surveillance inside Iran — evidenced by previous Mossad operations that successfully exfiltrated Iranian nuclear archives and targeted key figures within Iran’s nuclear and military establishment. The strike reportedly focused on military and IRGC-linked sites rather than core civilian nuclear facilities, which reduces the chance of mass civilian casualties and makes such attacks more politically defensible.

As we have seen, the aftermath has been contained so far, though the risk of retaliation by Iran or its regional proxies remains significant. Israel built a drone factory inside Iran, close to key military facilities, with Iran reportedly unaware of it for quite some time. This is very similar, if you think about it, to what happened recently in Russia, where Ukraine allegedly operated intelligence networks near sensitive sites, including close to an FSB building, and launched operations from there. So, it is a comparable scenario. I wonder if there was some level of coordination — whether the Ukrainians were inspired by that particular tactic or received some training or operational insight from the Israelis and Americans.

Regardless, we know that not only did the airstrikes kill multiple officials, but Israel also had assets on the ground that carried out targeted assassinations in person, not just through aerial strikes. This shows that the intelligence was top-notch and deeply embedded.

Israel did something else quite strategic: it deliberately misled everyone, including Iran and Russia, by signalling that it would wait for another round of nuclear talks before taking action — if those talks failed. They did not wait, which is why so many key officials were still gathered in vulnerable locations rather than hidden in bunkers or relocated abroad, where they would have been harder to reach. For years, none of these plans leaked, and even more recently, despite the close intelligence cooperation between Russia and Iran — formalized in agreements just a few months ago — they were unable to protect each other from breaches or infiltration. This all but guaranteed Israel’s success.

The operation was indeed effective. Israel reportedly inflicted damage on the Natanz nuclear facility — which is notoriously well-defended and hardened — as well as other sites. While it is unlikely that Israel alone could destroy Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure without U.S. military support, causing significant damage can still set the program back by months or even years. Additionally, eliminating senior nuclear scientists severely disrupts Iran’s technical capacity.

In retaliation, Iran immediately launched hundreds of drones and missiles toward Israel. At least one reportedly struck inside Tel Aviv. However, most damage has so far been infrastructural, with several people suffering light to moderate injuries but no confirmed fatalities at this point. This response was anticipated. Israel’s air defences, including the Iron Dome and other layers, have so far performed well.

While some observers worry about further escalation, regional instability, flight cancellations, and oil price spikes, the reality is that this operation could benefit regional security in the long term. Iran has been a significant source of destabilization for decades, supporting proxy militias and stirring conflict throughout the Middle East. Reducing its military and nuclear capabilities constrains its ability to project force and sponsor violence, which is only positive for its neighbours and global energy markets.

Jacobsen: There was also a tragic incident in Austria — a person was killed in a school. Details are still emerging, and the investigation is ongoing. How do you think this might influence Austria’s security policies? Will they follow trends seen in other countries after similar attacks?

Tsukerman: It is new territory for Austria, which historically has not faced school shootings or comparable attacks as frequently as countries like the United States. One reason often cited is Austria’s stricter gun laws. However, the issue is not just about firearms access; it is also cultural. We are seeing a global trend where violence, including mass or symbolic violence, is becoming more visible and, in some circles, more normalized, partly due to instant global communication and social media amplification.

I expect Austria to review its security policies for schools and public venues, possibly implementing tighter controls, surveillance, or preventive measures similar to those adopted by other European countries in response to isolated but impactful attacks. They will likely balance this with their privacy and civil liberties standards, which are stronger than in some other jurisdictions.

You watch something that happens somewhere else, and you become inspired by it. The more it is promoted, the more widespread it becomes, and the more international attention it attracts, the more likely it is that individuals who want to stand out — or feel a need to act out — will pick up on it.

In this case, the murderer reportedly claimed he had been bullied and had failed in his academic goals. In other words, he was not accepted to his preferred programs, he did not perform well academically, and he became bitter and resentful. Instead of seeking help, improving himself, or finding healthier ways to cope, he chose to take out his anger on innocent people.

Unfortunately, this is a typical pattern. Many previous school shootings have involved individuals with similar backgrounds — feelings of rejection, resentment, or failure. Austria was less prepared for this because such incidents were sporadic there. This might have been the first of its kind in that context.

We also know that his mother tried to intervene and warn authorities, but it was too late to prevent the attack. So, despite an effort to stop it early, it did not work logistically or quickly enough.

It is often challenging to identify such individuals promptly. Many people feel bullied or unsuccessful at some point in life; many people have psychological issues or depression, but the vast majority never turn violent. So, distinguishing which individual is actually on the path to violence has become more of an art than a science. Even when people post threats online, it is challenging to determine whether they intend to act or are merely venting. Social media is now so flooded with noise, bots, and empty threats that it is increasingly challenging to filter genuine red flags from background noise.

Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way to prevent these incidents 100% of the time other than staying vigilant, improving reporting mechanisms, and acting quickly when credible threats do surface.

Jacobsen: Switching topics: There was a crash involving Alt India’s Metabot airplane. News outlets and local teams are reporting from the scene. Casualties have been confirmed, and an investigation is underway. Possible causes include pilot error, technical failure, or weather conditions. What are your thoughts on this, including the likely impact on public confidence in India’s aviation sector? It appears that there have been numerous such incidents recently, not just in India but worldwide.

Tsukerman: Yes — a few factors come to mind immediately. Unfortunately, India does not have the strongest reputation for aircraft maintenance and airline reliability. While some airlines operate very safely, Air India, in particular, has had past issues, including reports of negligence or poor oversight. There have also been incidents involving military aircraft where parts were poorly maintained or even detached mid-flight. My first instinct upon hearing about this was that human error or inadequate maintenance could be significant factors.

However, initial reports suggest other possibilities as well — technical malfunctions unrelated to human error, possible bird strikes, or other unexpected factors. Some very unusual details have emerged: before the situation deteriorated completely, the pilot attempted to contact air traffic control to report multiple system failures, including a breakdown of basic communications. This suggests that it was not solely a pilot error but rather a combination of technical and environmental factors.

As for the public’s confidence in aviation, such incidents do shake people’s trust, especially when they happen in clusters. That said, air travel remains statistically very safe, and each major accident usually triggers improvements in safety protocols, maintenance standards, and pilot training. India’s aviation authorities will be under pressure to investigate thoroughly and show visible reforms to reassure the public.

That is not consistent with the usual kind of isolated error — like an engine failure, a single part malfunctioning, or routine maintenance being overlooked. It sounded more like a systemic failure affecting multiple components at once.

What could cause that? It may be too early to draw firm conclusions, but a few things have raised eyebrows among security analysts. For example, a Turkish company reportedly relocated its operations to that city just days before the crash. Some suspect that the company has indirect ties to the Turkish government.

Turkey has, in the past, played a background role in supporting certain militant groups that carried out attacks in Kashmir using Pakistani networks. Of course, it is doubtful that the Turkish government would directly target a civilian aircraft. If Ankara wanted to undermine India, it would more plausibly do so indirectly, perhaps by supporting proxy actors behind the scenes. Moreover, some people are beginning to suspect that this could be an act of sabotage motivated by local ideological or geopolitical interests.

Whether this company — which is reportedly named Gilebi — is working for the Turkish government or played any role at all remains unproven at this point. However, the fact that it relocated its 450 employees from Alsace to Ahmedabad just weeks before the incident has drawn attention.

Regarding the technical details, there are reports of a possible hydraulic system leak affecting the nose gear and lift settings, as well as some indications that the landing gear did not deploy properly. Again, these are early leaks, not official findings, but so far, no single explanation fully accounts for all the failures that happened simultaneously.

While negligence or overlooked maintenance could certainly be part of the story, many analysts think that alone is unlikely to explain a cascading systems failure of this scale. If it does turn out to involve intentional sabotage — whether by a rogue private entity or as a proxy act for another state — that will raise significant questions about how to respond and secure India’s aviation sector going forward.

Already, India–Turkey relations have been tense at the popular level. After the Kashmir attacks, there were large protests and calls for boycotts of Turkish products. Ankara has also been increasingly active among Indian Muslim communities — sometimes providing genuine humanitarian aid but also, critics say, stoking divisions with local Hindu communities in cities like Mumbai.

So, what will ultimately come of this remains to be seen. However, the fact that these concerns are being raised not only by random online accounts but also by reputable journalists suggests that there is at least some basis to investigate whether sabotage was a factor — perhaps not an outright terrorist attack, but deliberate tampering that caused critical equipment to fail. That is one scenario investigators cannot ignore at this stage.

But, of course, it is still too early to conclude the cause of the crash. So far, Prime Minister Modi has refrained from making any statements that would suggest it was a deliberate or malicious act by any party. He has focused instead on providing a supportive presence and allowing investigators to do their work.

Jacobsen: Switching topics — consumer sentiment in the United States improved in June, which was unexpected. Some analysts think this is driven by lower inflation expectations and a generally stable economic outlook. I have conducted numerous interviews with businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and finance experts, and they often say that “business loves stability.” Therefore, if people perceive stability, it is beneficial for business confidence. What does this positive trend indicate about the intersection of politics and business in the U.S. right now — and how do business leaders see it affecting citizens more broadly?

Tsukerman: Just a few months ago, many people were bracing for the worst because Trump was publicly threatening sweeping tariffs on a wide range of countries. He made big announcements, started negotiations, and then often backtracked or watered down the tariffs — or delayed them altogether. So, there is a sense of relief now that the worst-case trade scenarios have not yet materialized.

There is a genuine reason for improved consumer confidence: for now, things are more stable than people feared. There have been no sudden, drastic new moves from the administration lately. One significant factor was the court rulings that limited Trump’s ability to impose or escalate tariffs without congressional approval unilaterally. That court pushback reduces the likelihood of abrupt trade policy swings and, in turn, eases inflationary pressures.

Of course, this does not guarantee long-term stability. Congress could still authorize new tariffs if it aligns politically, and Trump has shown a willingness to ignore or fight court orders when it suits him. So, it is not entirely off the table — but the path is now more constrained than it seemed a few months ago.

Overall, the current outlook is relatively calm. There is a sense of continuity in other areas as well, such as efforts to secure critical rare earth supplies and maintain trade agreements — for example, no abrupt break with Canada, which is reassuring.

Ironically, the escalating crisis with Iran may also push the administration to focus more on foreign policy and less on disrupting trade partners unnecessarily. It is a grim silver lining: Sometimes, a serious external conflict shifts attention away from self-inflicted trade battles. It is a sad commentary on public expectations, but it does explain part of the improvement in consumer sentiment.

One other quirky factor: Elon Musk recently reconciled with Trump after a period of very public tension. Musk even apologized soon after his father, Errol Musk — who has often rebuked him — publicly defended him against rumours of drug use and urged him to mend fences with Trump. That thaw may also contribute slightly to market optimism, as investors tend to watch prominent personalities like Musk and Trump closely.

In summary, things are calmer for now; the worst trade shocks have not happened yet, the courts have clipped some presidential power, and influential business figures are trying to smooth over conflicts. All of that supports a more stable economic mood — at least for the moment.

But really, it was not just one thing that pushed Musk toward reconciling with Trump — it was a combination of factors. Trump threatened to terminate key government contracts, and things were moving in a bad direction for Musk financially and politically. It is not that Musk had no leverage; he did. He threatened, for example, to restrict government access to Starlink or use other forms of pressure. However, in the end, the government holds the bigger cards — quite literally, it has the contracts and the regulatory power, and it can always outlast a private player.

Additionally, Musk is no longer the only businessman with a private satellite network. There are no other companies in the market that significantly undercut the unique leverage he had for years as the only major player in that arena. Once it became clear that he could not win the standoff, reconciliation became the pragmatic choice.

Jacobsen: Speaking of Errol Musk and Lavrov — they are at this future-themed conference or “2050 panel” in Moscow or maybe Saint Petersburg. Do you have any thoughts on this gathering?

Tsukerman: Yes — Errol Musk was praising Russia at that event, calling it the “New Rome,” which is surreal. Elon, for all his criticism of his father, resembles him in more ways than he would admit. Politics is one of them. They both tend to flirt with authoritarian figures and adopt a performative contrarian stance.

Moreover, yes, they both exhibit a pattern of fathering children somewhat indiscriminately, but that is probably the least concerning commonality. Unfortunately, their gravitation toward Russian elites is another similarity — and the reasons are murky. It could be a blend of admiration for strongman politics, personal financial interests, possible kompromat (which would not be surprising given confident lifestyle choices and poor judgment), or simply an ideological affinity for anti-Western narratives.

What makes it more troubling is that it seems genuine. It goes beyond the usual cynical opportunism of doing business with everyone. You do not hear Elon Musk gushing about Indonesia or spending time cozying up to the leadership of mineral-rich African nations. Russia holds a peculiar attraction for him and, to a lesser extent, for Errol too — who now pops up on various channels acting as a kind of fringe propagandist by association.

Given Elon’s reach and power to influence public discourse through platforms like X, it is crucial to understand these ties better. They shape how people perceive conflicts, power blocs, and even the legitimacy of Western institutions.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or smaller stories worth flagging before we wrap up?

Tsukerman: Those were the significant points for now. However, this is unlikely to be the last clash between Musk and Trump. Their personalities almost guarantee future tension. Musk has the money; Trump currently has the presidential power. At some point, that rivalry will resurface, especially if Musk tries to shape the post-Trump landscape with significant political donations. We have already seen Trump hint at retaliating if Musk supports Democrats or rival Republicans. So, more drama ahead, indeed.

Jacobsen: Irene, thank you very much for your time again today — always insightful.

Tsukerman: Thank you! Looking forward to continuing next week.

Jacobsen: Sounds good. Talk soon.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.