How is Israel protecting its critical sites from Iranian retaliation?

Israel Katz, Israel’s defense minister, said in a statement that Iran “crossed a red line” by firing missiles at populated areas in Israel, warning that “the Ayatollah regime would pay a very heavy price” for its actions.

The explosions above Israel appeared to be from the interceptions of the missiles by Israel’s Iron Dome defensive system. Tracer fire from the ground could be seen streaking above the cities. Video of Tel Aviv shows at least one large explosion on the ground from an apparent missile strike.

Early reports from both Iran and Israel were difficult to immediately verify, as both countries claimed that their militaries had inflicted significant damage in the escalating conflict.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps said in a statement that it had struck dozens of targets in Israel “forcefully and with precision,” including military and defense sites, in response to Israel’s attacks on Iran that killed senior commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. The New York Times could not independently verify that claim.

But at least some of the Iranian missiles appeared to have evaded the Iron Dome system. At least seven sites in Tel Aviv and its surrounding areas were hit in the Iranian attack, according to an Israeli military official. The extent of the damage is still unknown.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, earlier said that Israel “should anticipate a harsh punishment” for its daylong assault, as some of Israel’s European allies expressed worry that Israel was ratcheting up its military conflict with Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has described the sustained assault as necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which Israel views as an existential threat. Israel’s military said on Friday that it had hit 200 sites so far, including nuclear sites in the cities of Natanz and Isfahan, and Mr. Netanyahu vowed that the fighting would last “as many days as it takes.”

Here’s what else to know:

• Top Iranians killed: Two high-ranking military commanders, Mohammad Bagheri and Gen. Hossein Salami, were killed, Iran said, as was Ali Shamkhani, a politician who was overseeing the nuclear talks with the United States, officials said. Two senior Iranian government officials said Gen. Ismail Ghaani, the Quds Forces commander in charge of proxies in the region, was among those who had been killed. Read more ›

• What was hit: Rafael Grossi, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz had been hit but said that no radiation leak had been detected. There were no indications of attacks at the deep-underground uranium enrichment center at Fordo, he said, although Michael Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, confirmed in an interview with Fox News his country’s intention to target Fordo. Read more ›

• Trump’s reaction: In Washington, President Trump, whose administration had been holding nuclear talks with Iranian officials, urged Tehran to strike a deal to curb its nuclear program or risk “even more brutal” attacks. Mr. Trump said that Tehran “must make a deal, before there is nothing left.” But Iran said it would not attend talks scheduled for this weekend in Oman.

• Iran’s proxies: Few analysts expect Iran’s network of armed proxies to respond meaningfully to the attack, illustrating how degraded the groups have become. Since the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel, the Israeli security services have launched operations that have severely weakened Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Assad dictatorship in Syria, a key ally of Iran, collapsed last December. Read more ›

The divergent reactions reflected a political divide over President Trump’s leadership, the use of military force, the role of diplomacy and America’s obligations in the Middle East.

Some Republicans in Congress applauded the operation even before President Trump praised it.

“Game on,” declared Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the most vocal Iran hawks on Capitol Hill, moments after the news broke. In a later statement, Mr. Graham said: “Hats off to Israel for one of the most impressive military strikes and covert operations in Israeli history.”

The House speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, also offered unequivocal support for the strikes, saying in a social media post late Thursday that “Israel IS right — and has a right — to defend itself!”

After Mr. Trump weighed in Friday morning, saying that Iran had brought the attacks on itself, Mr. Johnson applauded the administration’s decision to back Israel’s security goals and echoed the president’s position that Iran “must never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Mr. Johnson, who recently announced a trip to Israel later this month to address a special session of the Knesset, displayed the same frustration that many on Capitol Hill have expressed in recent weeks over Tehran’s refusal to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

“President Trump and his administration have worked tirelessly to ensure that outcome. Unfortunately, Iran has refused to agree and even declared yesterday its intent to build a new enrichment facility,” he said in a statement on Friday.

Senator James E. Risch, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had a similar message, saying, “We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”

Neither of the top two Democrats in Congress, Representative Hakeem Jeffries or Senator Chuck Schumer, both of New York, issued a statement on the strikes, though Mr. Jeffries called for de-escalation in an television interview.

“I’m hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the Middle East and the situation is de-escalated,” Mr. Jeffries said on MSNBC on Thursday night. “We certainly believe that Iran should never be allowed to become nuclear-capable — they are an enemy not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the free world — but we also want to see a reduction in hostilities.”

Among Democrats, no lawmaker has been more vocally supportive of Israel than Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who has carved out a distinct role as the party’s most unapologetic defender of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

In the hours after the strike, Mr. Fetterman posted on social media: “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute and I fully support this attack. Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

And several strongly pro-Israel Democrats in the House praised the strikes. Representative Greg Landsman of Ohio swiftly issued a statement proclaiming: “Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people.”

But other Democrats called for de-escalation or expressed concern that Israel’s military action could lead to broader regional instability.

“Israel’s strikes against Iran represent an escalation that is deeply concerning and will inevitably invite counterattacks,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “This risks not only U.S. negotiations with Iran, but the safety of American service members, diplomats, their families and expats around the region.”

Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat of the Armed Services Committee, echoed those concerns.

“I urge both nations to show immediate restraint, and I call on President Trump and our international partners to press for diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control,” he said. “The world cannot afford more devastating conflict born of shortsighted violence.”

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said in a statement a war between Israel and Iran “may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region.” He added that the United States has “ no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

At least one right-wing Republican voiced the same the sentiment. “I’m sad to say but some members of Congress and US Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war,” Representative Warren Davidson, Republican of Ohio, wrote on social media.

As Israel continued attacking Iran, Michael Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, confirmed his country’s intention to target the site.

“The entire operation,” he told Fox News in an interview, “really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordo.”

Here is what we know about the site:

Where is the Fordo enrichment center?

The facilities, buried deep underground in a mountain in the village of Fordo, are roughly 20 miles from the holy city of Qom.

While it is likely that construction on the plant began as early as 2006, the existence of the site was publicly revealed in 2009.

What is done there?

Fordo is a uranium enrichment location where Iran has developed centrifuges to process weapons-grade uranium up to 60 percent purity, an amount far higher than the 3.7 percent purity levels needed for civilian use.

The site was built to hold roughly up to 3,000 centrifuges, which spin quickly to produce fuel for nuclear weapons or reactors, said Richard Nephew, an Iran expert at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy.

Iran, he said, had planned to install even more advanced centrifuges, called IR6s, that could process uranium three to five times more efficiently than the technology currently at the facility.

Considering the facility’s size and configuration, Mr. Nephew said it was well-suited to producing weapons.

“If you don’t deal with Fordo,” Mr. Nephew said, “it’s got enough centrifuges that it could produce a nuclear weapon pretty quickly.”

Who runs the facility?

While it is not exactly clear who manages operations at the facility, experts said it was likely that a combination of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, the military and scientists at the plant were in charge.

The security around the facility is maintained by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mr. Nephew said.

Can Israel destroy Fordo?

Given the facility’s location and fortifications, it would be difficult for Israel to penetrate it with traditional strikes, said Daniel Shapiro, a security expert at the Atlantic Council.

Compared to Natanz, the largest Iranian nuclear facility, which Israel struck early Friday, Fordo is much less exposed. Its destruction would require much more specific bunker-busting equipment.

“If you were to just sort of drop bombs on it, it wouldn’t penetrate it,” Mr. Nephew said.

However, even if Israel doesn’t breach the parts deepest underground, it still may be able to make Fordo inaccessible, by destroying the entrance to it.

Experts agreed that a plan to disable the site — perhaps a combination of special and covert operations, they said — would be essential to stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Israelis have got a multiday campaign plan,” Mr. Nephew said. “It is inconceivable to me that Israelis would launch this attack without an idea of how to deal with Fordo.”

The military assets are not being moved to take part in any offensive against Iran, one Defense Department official said. He said that Pentagon officials are still waiting on decisions that might come out of President Trump’s meeting with senior national security officials on Friday morning at the White House. Until then, the official described much of American military posture in the region as still to be determined.

The repositioning of the naval destroyers, first reported by The Associated Press, could supplement Israel’s ability to shoot down ballistic missiles fired as part of an Iranian retaliation.

While U.S. military officials said Friday that Israel has good air defenses, there was some worry that it would need assistance if Iran tried to overwhelm those defenses with a coordinated, large-scale attack.

Last October, United States forces helped Israel thwart a large barrage of missiles and drones launched by Iran after Israel killed a high-ranking a Hamas leader as he visited Iran and then assassinated the leader of Hezbollah in Libya.

There are around 40,000 American troops in the region.

This time around, after an audacious wave of attacks that targeted nuclear facilities and military leaders, there was less understanding and more concern.

Some European allies worried that Israel was ratcheting up a military conflict with Iran after eight months of simmering tensions but no overt warfare.

“Escalation serves no one in the region,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said, while the European Union’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, called the situation “dangerous.”

Those remarks followed a growing chorus of European condemnation of Israel over the past few months for escalating the war in Gaza after a cease-fire collapsed in mid-March, and for holding back humanitarian aid as the population in the enclave edges closer to the brink of starvation.

The tepid support from some countries that traditionally are among Israel’s strongest allies reflected what Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior Middle East policy expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, called an “unprecedented” and “unprovoked” attack against Iran that risked “an active war scenario between the two countries.”

Some of the sharpest condemnation on Friday came from countries in the region. Egypt, which has a longstanding peace treaty with Israel, called the latest Israeli strikes a violation of international law and “a direct threat to regional and international peace and security.”

Turkey accused Israel of resorting to military force instead of diplomacy to resolve tensions.

Still, a number of important allies stood behind Israel and expressed mounting frustration with Iran’s advancing nuclear program. And should Iran launch a powerful counterattack against Israel, allies could still come to the country’s defense militarily.

President Trump told CNN that “we of course support Israel,” and called the strikes “a very successful attack.” He urged Iran to limit its nuclear activities “before it will be too late for them.”

President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has recently sparred with Israel over its ongoing war in Gaza and the limiting of humanitarian aid to hungry and desperate Palestinians, said Israel has a “right to protect itself and ensure its security.”

Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Iran has refused to abide by agreements to limit its nuclear program and added that Tehran “poses a serious threat to the entire region, especially to the State of Israel.”

Daniel B. Shapiro, who was a deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East during the Biden administration, said the fact the United States did not participate in the attack “does not mean the United States won’t assist in Israel’s defense. It will.”

That effort is being put to the test as never before on Friday amid waves of Israeli attacks on Iran aimed at destroying key facilities and decapitating the military and civilian leadership running its nuclear programs.

“I think the tension is palpable and everybody is concerned about possible blowback,” said Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk analysis organization. “This is a moment of great uncertainty throughout the region. It is the big war the region has been both fearing and anticipating for years.”

The Gulf Arab states, and indeed much of the Arab world, were quick to issue robust condemnations of the Israeli attacks like this one from Riyadh: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggression against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran, which undermine its sovereignty and security and constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms.”

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, and several others from the region called their Iranian counterpart to repeat the condemnation.

With the Arab world already inflamed by the Gaza conflict, a related war in Lebanon, a long-running civil war in Yemen and Syria barely staggering to its feet after 14 years of violence and civil war, there was also frustration that attempts at de-escalation had failed. It was tensions over Yemen that had prompted the 2019 attack against Saudi Arabia.

“We are frustrated and fatigued,” said Bader al-Saif, a professor of history at Kuwait University. “The region has been doing its best for the past few years to come to terms with everyone, including Israel,” he added. “But Israel is trying to reset the region to their own tune and they are trying to do this violently.”

The United States was considered part of the problem. Although President Trump kept a certain distance from the prospect of conflict between the Middle East’s two most powerful militaries, and had been trying to negotiate a new deal to defuse Iran’s nuclear program, he had not blocked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel from launching the attack.

“After the triumphant Trump visit to the Gulf and serious mediation efforts, there will also be some frustration that Trump has proved unwilling or unable to restrain Netanyahu,” said Dr. Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, a London-based research institute.

Part of the equation is that the region depends heavily on American military power for its defense, with U.S. forces deployed at air bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as well as a major naval base on Bahrain, along with troops scattered across Iraq and northeastern Syria.

While the Gulf bases were established in recent decades not least as a deterrent for Iran, there was fear that Tehran might miscalculate by targeting them, widening the conflict by drawing in the United States.

Gulf countries have all committed billions of dollars to major, futuristic development projects meant to wean their economies off oil, so a major war would also jeopardize those plans.

The attacks by Israel against Iran immediately threatened the region’s economy, with airlines canceling countless flights for the foreseeable future. Israel, Iran, Iraq and Jordan all closed their airspace. Countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt that depend heavily on tourist dollars had been hoping for a revival.

Jordan said it was shooting down Iranian projectiles that violated its airspace, but underscored that it was protecting itself and not joining the war. Syria was considered completely out of this conflict.

Of course, Arab states had been worried about Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons as well, even if there was some sense that Israel had exaggerated the threat. Crippling the Iranian nuclear program would provoke some satisfaction, analysts said, but it seemed an enormous gamble.

“If Israel and or the United States can finish off the threat to the Gulf countries via military means, I don’t think that Arab leaders will be shedding tears,” Mr. Maksad said. “The great concern is a job half-done that then leaves them wide open to retaliation and undermines their national development projects in the process.”

Two rounds of tit-for-tat attacks between Israel and Iran last year ended fairly quickly, but there was anxiety that this new one could escalate. That increased the potential for unforeseen consequences. “For the Iranians, this will require a different kind of response, more sustained and more hurtful,” said Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

For the moment Iran’s beleaguered proxy forces, including Hezbollah, did not react beyond verbal condemnations. Worst-case scenarios include the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for Persian Gulf oil exports. Since Iran depends on that flow as well, even as it is limited at the moment due to sanctions, that is seen as a possible last desperate step.

“If this continues, we are going into unchartered terrain,” Dr. al-Saif said.

Ismaeel Naar contributed reporting.

In doing so, analysts said, Mr. Netanyahu had short-term motivations: to derail diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran, and to prevent the immediate expansion of Iran’s nuclear program.

He also has far grander aspirations. For decades, Mr. Netanyahu has presented the Shiite Islamist regime in Iran as the greatest threat to Israel’s security, both because of its homegrown efforts to build a nuclear bomb, and because of Iran’s support for Palestinian militias and other Arab groups opposed to Israel.

After years of advocating for the overwhelming use of force to quell that danger, Mr. Netanyahu finally seems ready to turn his threats into action — perhaps, analysts said, with an eye on his place in Israeli history

Mr. Netanyahu now risks embroiling the region, and potentially, the United States, in conflict as he faces domestic turmoil at home and greater international censure over his conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza.

“For him, this is personal — for 25 years, he has been talking about this,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, a former adviser to Mr. Netanyahu, and an Israeli political analyst. “This is the big picture that he has been aiming for. This is his legacy.”

Mr. Netanyahu had planned a large-scale attack on Iran more than a decade ago, during a previous term as prime minister. But he ultimately called it off under pressure from the Obama administration and amid concerns in his cabinet about Israel’s military capabilities. In 2015, he risked a rupture with President Obama by making a speech to Congress in which he criticized Mr. Obama’s efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy.

Recent events have made it easier for the military to strike, likely emboldening Mr. Netanyahu. Over the last year and a half, Israel decimated Iran’s regional alliances and reduced Iran’s own defensive capabilities. Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, is now severely weakened, while the Syrian government, another Iranian ally, was overthrown in December.

Finally, the election of President Trump widened the window of opportunity. Though Mr. Trump pursued a diplomatic arrangement with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and even asked Mr. Netanyahu to delay the strike, the president at times seemed more willing than President Biden to entertain the idea of an attack.

“Diplomatically, Trump’s election gave Netanyahu a president willing to rhetorically back a credible military threat,” said Michael Koplow, an analyst at Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group.

“Netanyahu’s preference to deal with Iran’s nuclear program through military action has been crystal clear for years, and he finally had his perfect storm of opportunity,” Mr. Koplow added.

Domestically, Mr. Netanyahu also stands to benefit from a strike on Iran. His reputation as the guardian of Israel’s security was tarnished by Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, the deadliest security failure in Israel’s history.

If the attack on Friday, which also killed two Iranian nuclear scientists, severely diminishes Iran’s nuclear program, analysts said, Mr. Netanyahu could bolster his national standing ahead of a general election next year.

“Netanyahu wants to start his election year with a visible advantage,” said Mazal Mualem, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu and a political commentator.

“Instead of bearing the responsibility for Oct. 7, he wants to be able to etch his role in the history of Israel as the statesman who defeated the Iranian nuclear program,” Ms. Mualem said. “But all this of course depends on how things will develop.”

Eventually, it could also present Mr. Netanyahu with an opportunity to end the war in Gaza, Mr. Shtrauchler said. For more than a year, Mr. Netanyahu has refused to consider a permanent truce in Gaza without Hamas’s complete defeat there, amid strong resistance to such an outcome from his right-wing allies.

By inflicting meaningful wounds on Hamas’s biggest benefactor, Iran, it may be easier for Mr. Netanyahu to compromise in Gaza, Mr. Shtrauchler said.

Now, Mr. Shtrauchler said, “He can wrap it up and say we changed the equation for the good. I don’t think it will happen tomorrow, but it’s a huge step toward that.”