On 12 June 2025, Israel launched ‘Operation Rising Lion’ targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, citing an imminent nuclear threat. Iran retaliated with its ‘True Promise 3’ operation against Israeli targets, escalating the situation into a full-scale war. President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, and join Israel’s war, was described as a ‘one-off attack’, but it adds a new layer of complexity, raising a host of unanswered questions.
To unpack these developments, India’s World sat down with Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin, India’s former Permanent Representative to the United Nations and one of the country’s most respected diplomatic voices on multilateral affairs. In this conversation, we explore whether Iran is still willing to engage in nuclear talks with the U.S., the rationale and timing behind the U.S. strikes, their legality and global impact, the risks to India’s energy security, and whether India’s diplomatic approach effectively balances its ties with Israel and Iran while safeguarding its strategic autonomy.
Kirti Singh: In a recent op-ed, you noted that Iran might still continue nuclear negotiations with the U.S. What factors lead you to believe Iran will maintain this approach, and in this context, how do you assess the impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Iran’s willingness to engage in nuclear talks?
Ambassador Akbaruddin: Iran’s leadership is more pragmatic than ideological. The Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan blasts wrecked machines but not know‑how. Rebuilding will cost time and money and requires calm supply lines. Restarting negotiations can deliver all three. The U.S. strike also forces Tehran to spend scarce cash on tunnels and new air defences. Avoiding that drain pushes Iran back to the table. The JCPOA name may be tarnished, but its essence—nuclear limits for economic relief—is still Iran’s least bad choice.
Kirti Singh: What prompted the U.S. to join Israel’s strikes, despite Trump’s campaign promise to end military adventurism? How do you interpret the timing and strategic calculus?
Ambassador Akbaruddin: Public details are sparse, yet some drivers stand out. First, intelligence suggested that Iran was moving sixty‑percent enriched stock and advanced centrifuges to deep underground tunnels at Fordow, a step the U.S. seems to have viewed as the final sprint zone before weapons‑grade fuel. Second, Israel signalled it would act alone; U.S. participation let Washington shape targeting and manage escalation. Third, Iran’s missile barrage on Israeli cities broke a long‑standing red line, prompting a decisive if limited reply that required no ground troops. Fourth, a single high‑impact sortie allowed President Trump to project strength while honouring his pledge to avoid new quagmires.
