Strategic Case Study: Western Security Risks Following the Attack on Iranian Nuclear Sites
- Editorial Staff
- 25. 6.
- Minut čtení: 6
Aktualizováno: 21. 8.
Prepared: June 22, 2025
Author: Strategic Analysis Unit – CEPRODE EUROPE
Download the full report here:
Situation Overview
On June 21–22, 2025, the United States—reportedly with Israeli coordination—conducted
targeted strikes on Iran’s key nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This marks a
significant escalation with direct implications for regional security, international law, and Western homeland safety.
Key Findings
1. Regional Destabilization
The strikes risk triggering a chain of asymmetric responses from Iran and its allied militias (Hezbollah, PMF, Houthis), particularly against U.S. and Israeli interests across the Middle East.
2. Limited Support from Global Powers
Russia: Likely to offer political and technological backing but not direct military
involvement.
China: Opposes escalation; favors diplomacy while shielding Iran economically.
3. Terror Threat to the West
Elevated risk of lone-wolf attacks or symbolic retaliations in Europe and North
America.
Hezbollah-linked cells and radicalized individuals represent a moderate to high
threat level in the next 1–3 months.
Potential targets: embassies, synagogues, airports, soft civilian gatherings.
4. European Risk Differentiation
High risk countries: France, UK, Belgium
Medium risk: Germany, Netherlands, Austria
Lower risk: Italy, Spain, Visegrád countries (PL, HU, CZ, SK)
Strategic Recommendations
Level 4–5 Risk Areas
Raise national terror alert level.
Reinforce security at Israeli, U.S., Jewish, and Iranian-linked sites.
Conduct targeted surveillance of radicalized Shiite circles.
Level 2–3 Risk Areas
Tighten airport and land border controls.
Intensify HUMINT/SIGINT cooperation within EU/NATO.
Engage local communities for early warning detection.
All States
Activate cross-agency rapid response units.
Maintain strategic communication to counter disinformation and fear.
Policy Outlook
Without de-escalation, the situation may evolve into a multi-front regional conflict, with spillover into Western societies through unconventional means. Governments should prepare for prolonged crisis management, hybrid threats, and diplomatic realignments in the Middle East.
1. Introduction
This document aims to offer an in-depth analysis of the geopolitical and security risks that emerged following the attack conducted by the United States, with probable Israeli coordination, against three strategic nuclear sites in Iran (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), between 21 and 22 June 2025. In an already polarized and unstable global context, this event risks provoking a dangerous regional escalation and triggering unconventional responses, including potential terrorist attacks in the West. The document analyzes the position of the main international actors, Iran's possibilities of reaction, regional dynamics and the concrete risk for Europe and the United States to be involved through hybrid or asymmetric threats.
2. International reactions
2.1 China
The People's Republic of China reacted harshly, calling the attack a serious violation of international law and comparing the American action to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to Chinese state media, unilateral military intervention represents a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire Middle East. Beijing reiterated its support for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis, insisting that multilateral dialogue, not force, is the only legitimate path to resolve nuclear tensions in Iran. At the same time, China aims to avoid a collapse of energy and trade stability in the region.
2.2 Russia
Moscow has expressed a strong condemnation of the attack, calling it a strategic mistake and a risk to global security. The Kremlin has signaled the possibility of taking on a mediating role, trying to limit diplomatic damage and keep channels open with Tehran. At the same time, Russia has warned of the danger of nuclear escalation, stressing the possible catastrophic effects in the event of direct involvement of civilian plants, as already happened in Chernobyl. Russian support, while predominantly diplomatic and strategic, could also include non-lethal technological and information assistance.
2.3 Pakistan
Pakistan reacted cautiously, but with unusually worried tones. The government has expressed strong concern about the direct repercussions on internal stability, especially in the Baluchistan region, where armed groups could take advantage of the chaos in Iran. While condemning the attack as a violation of international law, Islamabad has made it clear that it does not want to offer military support to Iran. However, the army was placed on high alert and the protection measures of Pakistan's nuclear program were strengthened. In the event that Israel strikes Pakistani territories, the posture could quickly change from defensive to reactive, triggering a potential temporary alignment with Tehran.
3. Actors Who Could Support Iran
In the post-attack context, the possibility of Iran receiving external support is real, but varies
greatly in intensity and form. The nature of the support will depend on the willingness of the
actors involved to avoid open conflict against the United States and its allies.
Russia and China are Tehran's main strategic partners. However, both seem oriented to avoid
direct involvement. Moscow could provide military-technical support (e.g. air defense systems,electronic intelligence), but it is already bound on the Ukrainian front. Beijing, more oriented towards economic stability, could strengthen ties with Iran through energy and technological channels, exerting diplomatic pressure on Washington.Much more concrete is the possibility of activating pro-Iran regional actors, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Syrian forces loyal to Assad. These groups can pose a real military threat to Israel and to US bases in the Middle East, acting with the
logic of asymmetrical warfare and indirect retaliation.
4. Terrorist Risk Assessment in the West
The attack on Iran's nuclear sites is likely to trigger a wave of reactions that goes far beyond the Middle East's borders. The West, especially Europe, is exposed to a growing risk of terrorist activities, both organized and spontaneous. The possibility that pro-Iranian sleeper cells, Hezbollah-linked groups or self-radicalized individuals decide to strike symbolic targets in the West cannot be ruled out. Possible targets include embassies, synagogues, transport infrastructure, cultural centers and diplomatic offices. The threat is not uniform: while some countries have historically hosted operational networks closer to the Shiite axis, others could be targeted for geopolitical, logistical or symbolic reasons. Counter-terrorism surveillance in Europe is now much more advanced than in the past, but the alone wolf' threat remains extremely difficult to prevent and neutralize in a systematic way.
5. Country Risk Model and Time Scenarios
The following table analyses a number of European countries, including the Visegrád Group (V4), according to the level of perceived risk of terrorist attacks in the short and medium term. Metrics considered include the presence of significant Shia communities, historical history of Iranian- related attacks, and the quality of local counterterrorism surveillance.
6. Operational Recommendations
Depending on the level of risk identified, the following measures are recommended by national governments, security authorities and supranational organisations:
Level 5 – Extreme
- Visible deployment of special forces.
- Closing high-risk symbolic targets.
- Business continuity plans for infrastructures.
- Preventive blocking of reported subjects.
Level 4 – Very High
- Anti-terrorism alert at the highest level.
- Enhanced protection for sensitive sites.
- Monitoring Shiite and radicalized environments.
- Targeted operations against high-profile individuals.
Level 3 – High
- Intensive surveillance in public transport.
- Discreet control of migration flows.
- Analysis of suspicious communications.
- Joint exercises for multiple scenarios.
Level 2 – Medium
- Border monitoring.
- Updating of aerial checklists.
- Collaboration with religious communities.
- Presence of patrols at public events.Level 1 – Low
- Coordination with European partners.
- Passive surveillance of diplomatic offices.
- Rapid escalation preparation.
- Reassuring communication and public supervision.
Conclusion
The strategic repercussions of the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities extend well beyond the Middle East, with tangible implications for Western security. While an immediate full-scale conflict remains unlikely, the proliferation of asymmetric threats—including terrorism, cyber operations, and regional destabilization—demands sustained vigilance. A coordinated and preemptive posture by Western nations will be essential to mitigate escalation and preserve geopolitical stability.
Komentáře