The operation raises more questions than answers, further highlighting the only rational path for U.S. policymakers: avoiding a direct war with the Islamic Republic. 

Israeli officials claim to have hit over 300 targets across Iran via airstrikes, drones, and numerous clandestine operations within the country. Those targets include major Iranian nuclear facilities like the Natanz enrichment site, multiple nuclear scientists, and leading figures in the Iranian government and military. Israel announced that military operations will last multiple days. 

Reports suggest that Israel assassinated the head of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Hossein Salami, Chief of Staff of the general command Ali Bagheri, and additional general command officers. Ali Shamkhani, direct aid to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also died from his injuries. 

Ironically, Washington continued to call on Tehran to attend scheduled nuclear negotiations. U.S. President Donald Trump boasted about his apparent knowledge of the Israeli operation – reminding the Islamic Republic of a credible use of force. 

Iranian officials called off the talks. Tehran opted to launch multiple waves of attacks at Israel in what could become a dangerous escalatory spiral. 

Whether or not U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations continue or restart remains to be seen. Trump is wise to publicly push diplomacy amid an incredibly unstable and unpredictable situation, but he is doing so in a way that directly ties Washington to Tel Aviv's attack. Worse, it poisons the well from the beginning, highlighting to an already skeptical Tehran that this administration cannot be trusted. 

That dynamic is why any decision to latch onto Israel at this moment is ultimately foolish. Time and again, Iran has proven that it associates Israeli and U.S. military actions against it as one in the same. 

Reinforcing that conclusion puts U.S. troops in harm's way and risks drawing Washington into a conflict with Tehran – the opposite of a core U.S. national interest. It also contradicts the U.S. public, who for years have rejected new Middle East wars. 

Some experts argue that Tehran is disinterested in a wider conflict it knows it will lose. While that is certainly a possibility given Iranian officials care first and foremost about regime survival, it is not rooted in guarantees. Rather, it risks misinterpreting the Islamic Republic's aggressive behavior – particularly when attacked or faced with existential threats.