The 12-Day War: Geopolitical Shockwaves from the Israel-Iran Confrontation
Executive Summary
The 12-Day War: Geopolitical Shockwaves from the Israel-Iran Confrontation
The direct military conflict between Israel and Iran in June 2025, a 12-day war that included unprecedented U.S. intervention, has fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of the Middle East. This report analyzes the multifaceted consequences of the conflict, examining its military anatomy, the precarious nature of the ensuing ceasefire, its volatile economic impacts, and the divergent reactions of global powers. The war marked a definitive shift from a long-standing "shadow war" fought via proxies to a direct state-on-state confrontation. This escalation was precipitated by a systematic Israeli campaign that degraded Iran's regional proxy network, compelling both sides into a new and more dangerous form of engagement.
Israel's "Operation Rising Lion," launched on June 13, and the subsequent U.S. strikes on Iran's core nuclear facilities, inflicted significant damage on Tehran's military and nuclear infrastructure. However, these actions have paradoxically hardened Iran's resolve to acquire a nuclear weapon, creating a graver long-term proliferation risk. The U.S.-brokered ceasefire that followed was a chaotic diplomatic exercise, announced via social media and collapsing almost immediately amid mutual recriminations, revealing the unmet strategic objectives of both belligerents.
Economically, the conflict triggered severe volatility in global markets. The threat of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz sent oil prices surging and disrupted international aviation, demonstrating the region's critical role in the global economy. The crisis also exposed the strategic calculus of major world powers. The United States acted as a reluctant but decisive belligerent, its policy marked by internal contradictions. The NATO alliance, meeting in The Hague, was largely a spectator, its agenda overshadowed by the actions of its most powerful member. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, was exposed as a powerless ally to Iran, while China played the role of a cautious opportunist, publicly calling for peace while privately recognizing the long-term strategic benefit of a U.S. entanglement in the Middle East. The conflict has shattered the emerging paradigm of regional diplomatic and economic integration, leaving Gulf states in a precarious position and raising the specter of a wider, more destructive war. While the direct fighting was brief, its shockwaves will continue to reverberate, defining the region's geopolitics for years to come.
1. Anatomy of a New Middle East War
1.1. From Shadow War to Open Conflict: The Launch of 'Operation Rising Lion'
The events of June 2025 marked a dramatic and perilous paradigm shift in the Middle East, transforming the long-simmering "shadow war" between Israel and Iran into an overt, state-on-state military confrontation.1 For years, the rivalry was characterized by clandestine operations, cyber-attacks, and conflicts fought through proxies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The decision to move to direct warfare appears to have been a calculated one by Israel, predicated on a significant degradation of Iran's asymmetric capabilities. In the preceding 18 months, Israel had inflicted devastating damage on Hezbollah, seen the collapse of its ally Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, and witnessed the steady erosion of Houthi missile capabilities through U.S. and Israeli strikes.2 This systematic dismantling of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" 3 effectively removed the strategic buffer that had previously deterred direct attacks on Iranian soil.
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," a large-scale military campaign that went far beyond counter-proliferation strikes.4 The stated Israeli objective was not merely to delay Iran's nuclear program but to inflict "punitive damage that causes permanent harm to the Islamic Regime's military capabilities and political resolve".1 The operation's targets included Iran's key nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, but also extended to conventional military infrastructure, the homes of senior military commanders and nuclear scientists, and even state-run media buildings.5 This broad target set suggests an Israeli strategy aimed at systemic destabilization, seeking to unravel the Iranian state into a "fractured, zone of chaos" incapable of projecting power.5
Lacking its traditional proxy shield, Iran was compelled to retaliate directly. It launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, a significant departure from its established strategic doctrine.2 While Israel's vaunted multi-tiered air defense system intercepted many, some projectiles penetrated, causing dozens of casualties and significant damage in Israeli cities.4 This direct retaliation from Iranian territory crossed a critical threshold, setting the stage for an even more dangerous phase of the conflict and justifying, in Washington's view, direct American intervention.
1.2. The American Intervention: U.S. Strikes and the Doctrine of Regime Integrity
After a week of intense Israeli operations, the United States directly entered the conflict on June 21-22, 2025, escalating the war significantly.3 In a televised address, President Donald Trump announced "massive precision strikes" against Iran's nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, which he described as a "spectacular military success" that had "completely and fully obliterated" the facilities.4
The U.S. intervention was driven by a specific military necessity that went beyond political solidarity. While Israel's initial strikes were damaging, they were unable to neutralize the deeply buried Fordow enrichment facility.7 The U.S. deployed B-2 stealth bombers armed with 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs—so-called "bunker-busters" designed to penetrate hardened, underground targets. This is a unique capability that only the United States possesses, indicating that the American entry was essential to achieve a key military objective that Israel could not accomplish alone.4 This operational codependence suggests a degree of pre-planning that belies initial U.S. claims of non-involvement.
The official justification for the American strikes was fraught with contradiction. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials insisted the mission was "not and has not been about regime change".3 This message was intended to signal limited aims and prevent a wider conflagration. However, this was repeatedly and publicly undermined by President Trump himself. On his social media platform, he called for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" and openly floated the idea of regime change, creating profound strategic ambiguity.12 This inconsistent messaging reflected a deep tension within U.S. policy, leaving allies and adversaries uncertain of Washington's ultimate goals.
1.3. Initial Battle Damage Assessment: The Degradation of Iran's Nuclear and Military Capabilities
The combined U.S.-Israeli campaign inflicted substantial, though not necessarily permanent, damage on Iran's strategic assets. Initial U.S. assessments claimed the three primary nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan had been "heavily damaged".4 The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, later confirmed that the U.S. strikes likely inflicted "very significant damage" on the Fordow facility.16 However, the long-term impact remains contested. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization insisted its program would continue unabated 4, and independent experts believe Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program within one to two years, likely moving operations to new, clandestine locations and evicting IAEA inspectors.7 Further complicating the assessment, Iranian officials claimed to have relocated some of their enriched uranium to secure, undisclosed locations prior to the attacks.16
Beyond the nuclear file, the campaign was highly effective in its "decapitation" strikes, eliminating several top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists.4 To further destabilize the regime, Israeli strikes also targeted the command-and-control structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) at the provincial level, as well as internal security institutions like the Basij.16
The success of these operations highlighted a critical vulnerability for Tehran: a "persisting weakness of Iran's counterintelligence".7 This was not a new development, as evidenced by the successful assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July 2024.7 These repeated security failures severely hamper Iran's ability to protect its high-value assets and leadership, and they will complicate any effort to rebuild its conventional military capabilities and proxy networks.7
2. The Fragile Ceasefire: A Diplomatic Tightrope
2.1. The Trump-Qatar Initiative: Brokerage and Terms of a Tenuous Truce
On June 23, 2025, as the conflict reached its zenith, U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly pivoted from belligerent rhetoric to peacemaker, announcing a "Complete and Total CEASEFIRE" between Israel and Iran.16 The diplomatic breakthrough was reportedly the result of mediation by Qatar, which has served as a key interlocutor in regional disputes.8 The path to the ceasefire was paved by Iran's carefully calibrated missile strike on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. By providing advance warning to Qatar, Iran delivered a symbolic retaliation for the U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites without inflicting casualties, thereby creating a crucial diplomatic off-ramp for the Trump administration to pursue de-escalation rather than massive retaliation.8
The terms of the ceasefire, as announced by President Trump, were notably complex and unconventional. The agreement was to be implemented in phases: Iran was to halt all strikes against Israel at midnight Eastern Time on June 24; Israel was to cease its operations 12 hours later; and the war would be officially considered over another 12 hours after that, at midnight on Wednesday morning.21 This convoluted, publicly announced timeline, brokered through a combination of direct communications between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and indirect channels to Iran via Qatar, was inherently fragile and susceptible to misinterpretation.8
2.2. A Truce in Name Only?: The Immediate Collapse and Cycle of Recrimination
The legitimacy of the ceasefire was contested from the moment of its announcement, a problem exacerbated by its unorthodox unveiling on social media rather than through traditional diplomatic channels.19 While Netanyahu's office confirmed Israel's agreement, he simultaneously instructed his cabinet ministers to refrain from public comment, signaling internal caution or disagreement.21
Crucially, Iranian officials repeatedly and publicly denied that a formal agreement had been reached. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on social media that there was "NO 'agreement' on any ceasefire," while another official informed CNN that Tehran had never even received a formal proposal.21 Iran consistently framed its position not as an acceptance of a U.S.-brokered deal, but as a conditional readiness to halt its attacks
if Israel ceased its aggression first.8 This public posturing allowed Tehran to avoid the appearance of capitulating to Trump's demand for "unconditional surrender," which would have been a grave threat to the regime's domestic standing.13
Unsurprisingly, the truce collapsed within hours. Israel accused Iran of launching multiple missiles toward its territory after the ceasefire was supposed to have taken effect.14 In response, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered forceful retaliatory strikes against targets in Tehran.18 Iran's military vehemently denied launching any missiles post-ceasefire and leveled its own accusations, claiming Israel had conducted predawn strikes after the deadline, including an attack that killed a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist.14
The rapid breakdown prompted a furious reaction from President Trump, who expressed palpable frustration with both sides. He declared, "Iran violated it, but Israel violated it too," adding that the two nations "don't know what the f--- they're doing".14 In a dramatic intervention, he reportedly telephoned Netanyahu directly and demanded that Israel recall its warplanes and stand down, eventually announcing that the ceasefire was back in effect.14 The entire episode underscored how the ceasefire was built on a foundation of public pressure and ambiguity rather than quiet, binding commitments, making its failure almost inevitable.
2.3. The High-Stakes Diplomacy of De-escalation
Beneath the public chaos, the brief diplomatic window was enabled by calculated strategic moves and internal political pressures. Iran's missile attack on the U.S. Al Udeid base was a masterstroke in de-escalatory signaling. Faced with immense domestic pressure to respond to the devastating U.S. strikes, a high-casualty attack on American forces would have triggered an uncontrollable, all-out war. Instead, the telegraphed, non-lethal strike was a form of "performative retaliation".16 It allowed the Iranian regime to demonstrate resolve for its domestic audience while simultaneously giving the Trump administration a clear justification
not to escalate further, a point Trump himself acknowledged by thanking Iran for the "early notice".19
This symbolic act was likely reinforced by significant internal fissures within the Iranian regime. Reports emerged of moderate figures, such as former President Hassan Rouhani, actively pressuring Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to accept a ceasefire to ensure the survival of the regime.16 There were even rumors of contingency plans being developed by senior officials to sideline Khamenei and establish a leadership committee to negotiate an end to the conflict.16 This internal turmoil likely made Tehran more receptive to a Qatari-mediated halt to the fighting, even if it refused to publicly legitimize a U.S.-brokered "agreement." The ceasefire's ultimate collapse suggests that these internal pressures were not enough to overcome the unmet strategic objectives of hardliners in both Tehran and Jerusalem.
3. The Economic Fallout: Global Markets on Edge
3.1. The Strait of Hormuz: A Geopolitical Chokepoint and the Threat to Global Energy Security
The direct military confrontation between Israel, Iran, and the United States sent immediate and severe shockwaves through global energy markets. The primary driver of market anxiety was the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway separating Iran from the Gulf states.12 As a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil flows and 20% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) passes, any disruption poses a systemic threat to the world's energy supply.6
This fear was reflected in sharp price volatility. At the onset of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion," oil prices jumped, and they surged again after the U.S. entered the conflict.1 At its peak, the price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, surged by 18% to $77 per barrel.6 The market was clearly pricing in a "Hormuz disruption premium" rather than an "Iran production premium." While Iran is a significant oil producer, its export facilities were not the primary targets of the initial strikes.27 The market's fear was not the loss of Iranian barrels alone, but the potential for Iran to retaliate by attacking Gulf Arab oil infrastructure or attempting a full or partial closure of the Strait.1 Analysts warned that a worst-case scenario involving a sustained blockade could cause oil prices to spike to $130 per barrel, shaving nearly a full percentage point off global GDP and raising the risk of a global recession.1
The market's sensitivity to this specific risk was confirmed by its reaction to diplomatic news. The announcement of the ceasefire triggered an immediate and sharp drop in prices, with West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude tumbling to $65.00 per barrel as traders rapidly unwound their geopolitical risk hedges.29
3.2. Market Volatility and Capital Flight: Reactions in Equities, Bonds, and Commodities
The conflict's impact extended well beyond energy markets, triggering a classic risk-off sentiment across global finance. U.S. stock markets slumped under the dual pressures of rising oil prices and geopolitical uncertainty, with the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Nasdaq composite all registering significant declines.12 This market downturn was amplified by unfortunate timing, as it coincided with the release of a report showing weaker-than-expected U.S. retail sales.12 This suggests the geopolitical shock hit a global economy already exhibiting signs of fragility, with the conflict acting as a potent risk multiplier that exacerbated existing fears of a slowdown.
In response to the heightened risk, capital flowed into traditional safe-haven assets. The price of gold surged, approaching its record high as investors sought a hedge against inflation and instability.28 The U.S. dollar also strengthened as a primary defensive asset. In the bond market, yields on 10-year U.S. Treasuries fell, reflecting both a flight to safety and concerns about future economic growth.12
The announcement of the ceasefire reversed these trends almost instantaneously. The unwinding of the geopolitical risk premium triggered a broad "risk rally." The U.S. dollar weakened significantly, with the DXY index slipping below 98.50, which in turn boosted risk-sensitive currencies like the Australian dollar and supported commodity prices like silver.29 This sharp pivot demonstrated just how closely global financial markets were tethered to the day-to-day developments of the conflict.
3.3. Disruptions to Global Commerce: Aviation, Shipping, and Supply Chain Integrity
The war caused immediate and widespread disruption to global travel and commerce, particularly in the aviation sector. In response to missile attacks and heightened military activity, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait briefly closed their airspace.8 The perception of risk was not confined to the belligerent states. Major international airlines, including Qatar Airways, Emirates, Etihad, British Airways, and Singapore Airlines, suspended or rerouted a significant number of flights connecting the Middle East to Europe, North America, and Asia.30 Air India took the drastic step of ceasing all operations to the region and halting flights to and from the East Coast of the U.S. and Europe that would transit nearby airspace.30
This response reveals a new geography of perceived risk, where the entire Gulf region is treated as a single, integrated conflict zone. An attack in one part of the region is now seen as an immediate threat to the operational integrity of major global hubs like Dubai and Doha, forcing a large-scale and costly rerouting of global air traffic.30
The U.S. government responded to the "volatile and unpredictable security situation" by taking significant measures to protect its citizens and personnel.31 The State Department doubled the number of emergency evacuation flights for American citizens wishing to leave Israel, ordered the departure of non-essential staff from the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, and issued heightened travel warnings for U.S. citizens in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.4 These actions underscored the official U.S. assessment that the conflict had the potential to spill over and destabilize the entire region.
4. The Great Powers' Calculus: Navigating a New Crisis
4.1. The United States: A Reluctant Belligerent?
The Trump administration's handling of the Israel-Iran war was defined by a series of deep and destabilizing contradictions. Officially, the administration maintained that its objective was limited to degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities and was not aimed at regime change.3 However, this official policy was consistently undermined by President Trump's own erratic and maximalist rhetoric. He publicly called for Iran's "unconditional surrender" and threatened its leadership, only to later state that "regime change takes chaos and, ideally, we don't want to see much chaos".3 This oscillation between peacemaker and warmonger can be interpreted not merely as incoherence but as a high-risk "madman theory" negotiating tactic. By threatening the worst possible outcome, the administration may have sought to shock an Iranian leadership already facing internal pressure into accepting a ceasefire.16
Regardless of intent, this approach created profound uncertainty and allowed regional actors, particularly Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, to drive the agenda. Analysis suggests that Netanyahu was a primary beneficiary of the crisis, successfully "dragging the United States into his obsessive decades-long fight with Iran" and dictating the pace of the conflict.3 The unilateral nature of the U.S. strikes, conducted without congressional approval, also triggered significant domestic political fallout. Democratic leaders condemned the action as an illegal and unconstitutional act of war, highlighting the deep partisan divisions over executive military authority.23
4.2. NATO's Hague Summit: A Distracted Alliance
The NATO summit, held in The Hague on June 24-25, was intended to be a landmark event focused on countering the long-term threat from Russia and securing a historic new defense spending pledge of 5% of GDP from member states.33 Instead, the summit's agenda was completely overshadowed by the live crisis unfolding in the Middle East.26 The conflict dominated headlines and the attention of allied leaders, particularly President Trump, who arrived just hours after brokering the fragile ceasefire.26
This situation revealed a "two-tier" structure within the alliance. While the collective body was focused on long-term strategic planning for a potential European war, its most powerful member, the United States, was unilaterally engaged in an active conflict outside of NATO's traditional area of operations. NATO's official stance on Iran, as articulated by Secretary General Mark Rutte, was limited to reiterating its long-held position that "Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon".37 Rutte explicitly stated that NATO as an organization was not involved in the crisis.38 He did, however, rhetorically link the Iran issue to the alliance's primary focus by highlighting Tehran's material support for Russia's war in Ukraine, framing Iran as part of a broader authoritarian challenge.37 Ultimately, no specific resolutions or communiques addressing the Israel-Iran war emerged from the summit, which proceeded with its pre-planned agenda on spending and deterrence against Russia.33
4.3. Russia: A Powerless Ally
The conflict starkly exposed the limits of Russian power and influence in the Middle East. Publicly, the Kremlin adopted a strong pro-Iran stance, with President Vladimir Putin condemning the U.S. and Israeli strikes as "unprovoked" and "unjustified" and offering to mediate a settlement.19 However, this rhetoric was completely detached from Moscow's actual capabilities.
In reality, Russia was powerless to provide any meaningful military or diplomatic support to its strategic partner.41 The Russian military is suffering from severe strategic overstretch, with its forces and advanced equipment, particularly critical air defense systems, bogged down in the war in Ukraine.42 This left Moscow with no spare capacity to aid Iran, even if it had wanted to. The crisis laid bare Russia's loss of leverage; its relations with Israel have frayed since 2022, and its offers to mediate lacked credibility while it continued its own war of aggression.41 Reports indicated that Tehran was deeply disappointed with the absence of tangible Russian support, highlighting that the "strategic partnership" between the two countries offered little protection when it mattered most.20
4.4. China: The Cautious Opportunist
China's response to the crisis was a masterclass in strategic patience, presenting a mirror image to Russia's overstretch. Publicly, Beijing positioned itself as a responsible global power, condemning the strikes, calling for de-escalation, and championing the principles of international law and state sovereignty.43 This stance was driven by genuine short-term interests: China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil and has significant Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments across the region, making regional stability an economic necessity.44
However, beneath this public posture lies a shrewd long-term strategic calculation. A prolonged U.S. military entanglement in the Middle East serves China's primary geopolitical goal of challenging American global dominance.44 Just as the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan consumed U.S. resources and attention for two decades, a new conflict would divert American military assets and political focus away from the Indo-Pacific, giving Beijing a freer hand to consolidate its influence in its own backyard.44 Despite these potential long-term gains, China was careful to avoid any costly direct involvement. It offered no tangible military or economic aid to Iran, sticking to rhetoric and exposing the limits of its power projection capabilities when "the shooting starts".46 China's strategy is not to win the conflict for Iran, but to benefit from the United States being tied down by it.
5. Regional Reverberations and the Escalation Ladder
5.1. The View from the Gulf: Navigating Between Washington and Tehran
The Israel-Iran war placed the Arab Gulf states in an extraordinarily precarious position, making them the unwilling epicenter of the conflict's fallout. Geographically and strategically trapped, these nations host major U.S. military bases, such as Al Udeid in Qatar, making them potential targets for Iranian retaliation.16 Their economies, built on the export of hydrocarbons, are existentially vulnerable to any disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.11
In response, the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, performed a delicate diplomatic balancing act. They issued public statements expressing "deep concern" and urging restraint from all sides, but pointedly stopped short of condemning the U.S. strikes.11 This cautious language reflected their dual reality: a deep reliance on U.S. security guarantees coupled with a pragmatic desire to preserve the diplomatic and economic ties they have recently cultivated with Iran.11
The conflict has violently shattered the emerging "post-Abraham Accords" paradigm of regional stability, which was predicated on de-escalation, economic integration, and diplomatic rapprochement.7 The unilateral military actions of Israel and the U.S. have demonstrated that military adventurism can swiftly trump the painstaking work of diplomacy.2 For Gulf leaders, the war has punctured the image of stability and security that is essential to their long-term economic diversification plans, such as Saudi Vision 2030, which depend on attracting foreign investment and tourism.6 Turkey, a NATO member with its own complex relationship with Iran, also called for de-escalation, fearing a global spillover and a potential influx of Iranian refugees across its 560-km border.48
5.2. The End of the Proxy War Paradigm?
The direct state-on-state nature of the war was made possible by a preceding shift in the regional balance of power. For years, Iran's regional strategy was built on a network of powerful proxy forces. However, in the 18 months leading up to the war, Israel conducted a highly effective campaign that inflicted "devastating damage" on Hezbollah in Lebanon, saw the collapse of the allied Assad regime in Syria, and degraded the capabilities of the Houthis in Yemen.2
This systematic degradation of Iran's proxy shield represented a major strategic setback for Tehran. When Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," Iran found itself without its traditional tools for asymmetric retaliation. This forced a fundamental shift in its strategic doctrine: to maintain deterrence, it had to respond directly from its own territory with its own missile arsenal.1 While this demonstrated a new level of capability, it was also a far riskier and more escalatory posture. Though damaged, Iran's proxy network is not eliminated. The Houthis have threatened to renew attacks on maritime shipping 3, and Iran may resort to other asymmetric tactics like targeted assassinations abroad.7 However, its ability to command, control, and supply these forces has been severely hampered by its own depleted resources and significant counterintelligence failures.7
5.3. The Nuclear Question: Hardened Resolve and the Specter of a Regional Arms Race
Perhaps the most dangerous and enduring consequence of the 12-Day War is its impact on nuclear proliferation. The overwhelming consensus among security analysts is that the U.S.-Israeli strikes, far from eliminating Iran's nuclear ambitions, have paradoxically made a nuclear-armed Iran more likely.1
This outcome is a classic illustration of the security dilemma. From Tehran's perspective, the devastating attacks demonstrated its vulnerability to conventional military power and posed what its leadership could view as an "existential threat to regime survival".1 In such a context, the ultimate deterrent of a nuclear weapon becomes not a tool of aggression, but a necessary guarantee of security. It is therefore highly probable that Iran will "double down on achieving a nuclear-weapons capability" and accelerate its program, likely in secret, fortified locations, free from the oversight of IAEA inspectors.1
This raises the chilling long-term prospect of a nuclearized Middle East. An Iranian dash to the bomb could trigger a regional proliferation cascade, with other powers like Saudi Arabia feeling compelled to develop their own nuclear capabilities to maintain a balance of power.1 In the immediate term, the strikes on nuclear facilities like Natanz and Bushehr created a tangible risk of radiological leaks that could have endangered surrounding populations and caused a cross-border environmental crisis.9 The military attempt to solve the nuclear problem has likely entrenched it at a deeper, more intractable level.
6. Conclusion and Strategic Outlook
6.1. Summary of Key Findings
The 12-Day War between Israel and Iran has irrevocably altered the Middle East's security architecture. The conflict's defining feature was the transition from a long-standing shadow war to direct state-on-state military confrontation, a shift enabled by the prior degradation of Iran's regional proxy network. The subsequent U.S.-brokered ceasefire was a chaotic affair, conducted through unconventional channels and doomed to fail due to the unmet strategic objectives of both sides. Economically, the crisis demonstrated the global market's acute sensitivity to the specific risk of a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. The responses of the great powers were telling: the U.S. acted as a conflicted and unpredictable belligerent; NATO was a distracted observer; Russia was exposed as a strategically overstretched and ineffective ally; and China maintained its posture of a cautious opportunist, prioritizing long-term strategic advantage over short-term intervention. Regionally, the conflict shattered the nascent trend toward diplomatic integration and placed Gulf Arab states in an untenable position. Most critically, the military campaign designed to dismantle Iran's nuclear program has, paradoxically, provided the strongest possible incentive for Tehran to pursue a nuclear weapon, creating a more dangerous and unstable future.
6.2. Future Scenarios
The strategic outlook is fraught with uncertainty, with three primary scenarios emerging from the current fragile stalemate:
Scenario A: Tenuous De-escalation (Low-Intensity Conflict): This scenario, the most likely in the near term, involves a fragile, unacknowledged ceasefire that largely holds, preventing large-scale military exchanges. However, hostilities would continue at a lower intensity through cyber-attacks, targeted assassinations, and renewed skirmishes involving Iran's remaining proxy forces. In the background, Iran would covertly accelerate its nuclear program at dispersed, hardened sites. This state of "no war, no peace" would be inherently unstable and prone to sudden escalation.
Scenario B: Protracted Conflict (The "Long Hunt"): Should the ceasefire collapse entirely, the conflict could evolve into a protracted, attritional war. This would entail repeated cycles of Israeli and potentially U.S. strikes aimed at hunting down and destroying Iran's reconstituted nuclear assets, which would likely be hidden across the country.5 Iran would retaliate with missile barrages and asymmetric attacks, leading to sustained regional instability, continuous economic disruption, and a high risk of miscalculation.
Scenario C: Regional Conflagration (Wider War): This is the most dangerous, though less likely, scenario. It could be triggered by a strategic miscalculation, such as a successful Iranian attack that closes the Strait of Hormuz, a high-casualty strike on U.S. forces in the Gulf, or a devastating attack on Gulf oil infrastructure.1 Such an event would likely provoke a full-scale U.S. military response, drawing in Gulf states and plunging the entire region into a catastrophic war with global consequences.
6.3. Strategic Recommendations for Key Stakeholders
Navigating the post-conflict landscape requires a shift away from military maximalism and toward pragmatic, clear-eyed diplomacy.
For the United States & NATO: The immediate priority must be the establishment of robust, private, and reliable diplomatic backchannels with Iran to manage de-escalation and prevent miscalculation. The U.S. must articulate clear red lines and avoid the kind of ambiguous rhetoric that invites testing and misunderstanding. NATO, having been sidelined, should develop formal contingency plans for managing the severe economic and security fallout from out-of-theater crises driven by the unilateral actions of a key member state.
For Regional Powers (Gulf States, Turkey): The crisis has demonstrated the perils of relying on external security guarantors whose interests may not align with regional stability. Gulf states, through bodies like the Gulf Cooperation Council, and with other regional actors like Turkey and Egypt, should intensify efforts to build a durable regional framework for collective security and conflict resolution.2 Such a framework is essential for managing disputes internally and reducing the volatility introduced by outside powers.
For the International Community (UN, IAEA): The conflict has rendered previous nuclear agreements and frameworks defunct. A new, comprehensive diplomatic process is urgently needed to address the Iranian nuclear issue, one that acknowledges the new reality of hardened Iranian resolve. The immediate priority for the IAEA and the UN Security Council should be to push for unconditional, verifiable access to all Iranian nuclear sites to restore transparency, rebuild trust, and reduce the risk of a future conflict based on faulty intelligence or worst-case assumptions.49
Works cited
The Israel-Iran Conflict: Q&A with RAND Experts | RAND, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/06/the-israel-iran-conflict-qa-with-rand-experts.html
Israel's and Iran's Military Adventurism Has Put the Middle East in an Alarmingly Dangerous Situation | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed June 24, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-war-regional-stability-military-adventurism-proxies?lang=en
Perspectives on the US Attack on Iran and Its Repercussions - Arab Center Washington DC, accessed June 24, 2025, https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/perspectives-on-the-us-attack-on-iran-and-its-repercussions/
What to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the US intervention, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-attack-iran-strike-nuclear-us-news-5adea3ffa51264e0c7c803d8acfde338
Israel and the United States Are Planting a Harvest of Chaos in Iran, accessed June 24, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/israel-and-the-united-states-are-planting-a-harvest-of-chaos-in-iran/
Q&A: An Energy Take on the Current State of the Iran-Israel-US Conflict, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/qa-an-energy-take-on-the-current-state-of-the-iran-israel-us-conflict/
Israel strikes Iran. What happens next? | Brookings, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/israel-strikes-iran-what-happens-next/
The Latest: Ceasefire status is unclear after Israel reports continued missiles from Iran, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-iran-war-latest-06-23-2025-22bcdc063ea2e465f488cefb667517df
Recognising war: Gaza's occupation and the Israel-Iran conflict - the Loop: ECPR, accessed June 24, 2025, https://theloop.ecpr.eu/recognising-war-gazas-occupation-and-the-israel-iran-conflict/
Middle East Conflict: From Diplomacy to Disruption | Neuberger Berman, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.nb.com/en/link?type=article&name=article-middle-east-conflict-from-diplomacy-to-disruption
How Will Iran and the Middle East Respond to U.S. Strikes? - CSIS, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-will-iran-and-middle-east-respond-us-strikes
Stocks slump and oil prices jump as Trump urges Iran's unconditional surrender, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/stocks-markets-iran-tariffs-rates-b8cceca51655d69ee007b411bc9418b4
The Israel-Iran war: Scenarios for the days — and years — ahead | Middle East Institute, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/israel-iran-war-scenarios-days-and-years-ahead
Trump says Israel-Iran ceasefire is in effect after deal initially faltered, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-trump-ceasefire-attacks-continue-f1e60190722cc3410b69f21717872ffa
LIVE: Trump warns Israel not to attack Iran, says both sides broke truce - Al Jazeera, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/6/24/live-trump-announces-ceasefire-no-confirmation-from-israel-iran
Iran Update Special Report, June 23, 2025, Evening Edition | Institute for the Study of War, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-special-report-june-23-2025-evening-edition
Iran Update Special Report, June 20, 2025, Evening Edition | Institute for the Study of War, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-special-report-june-20-2025-evening-edition
Iran Denies Firing Missiles After Ceasefire, Rejects Israeli Violation Claims - IranWire, accessed June 24, 2025, https://iranwire.com/en/news/142597-iran-denies-firing-missiles-after-ceasefire-rejects-israeli-violation-claims/
US-Israel-Iran conflict: List of key events, June 23, 2025 - Al Jazeera, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/23/israel-iran-conflict-list-of-key-events-june-23-2025
Russia Rejects Charge It Did Little To Help Iran Amid Conflict With Israel - NDTV, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-rejects-charge-it-did-little-to-help-iran-amid-conflict-with-israel-8749583
Trump says Israel and Iran violating ceasefire he announced, demands Israel stop bombing, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-says-iran-violating-ceasefire-trump-announced-will-respond-with-force/
Have Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire? What we know - Al Jazeera, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/24/have-israel-and-iran-agreed-to-a-ceasefire-what-we-know
Live Updates: Donald Trump says ceasefire reached between Israel ..., accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/2025-06-23/live-updates-858638
Ceasefire Collapses as Israel Accuses Iran of Missile Attack - Time Magazine, accessed June 24, 2025, https://time.com/7297098/israel-iran-ceasefire-broken-missile-strikes-tehran/
Trump Says Israel-Iran Ceasefire Is in Effect After Deal Initially Faltered - Military.com, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/24/trump-says-israel-iran-ceasefire-effect-after-deal-initially-faltered.html
Trump heads to NATO summit as Iran overshadows agenda - CBS News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-nato-summit-iran-ukraine/
What does the widening military conflict in Iran mean for oil prices? Here's what the experts say. - CBS News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-price-prices-iran-military-strike-crude-gasoline-cbs-news-explains/
Israel-Iran conflict: update on market impact | Allianz Global Investors, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.allianzgi.com/en/insights/outlook-and-commentary/israel-iran
Global Markets Rebalance as Israel-Iran Ceasefire Triggers Risk Rally | 24th June, 2025, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.monetamarkets.com/markets/global-markets-rebalance-as-israel-iran-ceasefire-triggers-risk-rally-24th-june-2025/
US strikes on Iran add to global travel disruptions and flight cancellations, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/iran-travel-air-flights-cancellations-34a75a4aa1d402465e988c610dfdc50a
US boosts travel warnings after Trump orders strikes in Iran | AP News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-iran-lebanon-saudi-arabia-turkey-956e7d6599065f7f6ee034abed6fe0bb
World wary as it welcomes Iran-Israel ceasefire | Israel-Iran conflict ..., accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/24/world-wary-as-it-welcomes-iran-israel-ceasefire
2025 NATO Summit - NATO, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/235800.htm
Expect NATO's new spending pledge to be overshadowed by weakening US commitment and inaction on Ukraine - Atlantic Council, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/expect-natos-new-spending-pledge-to-be-overshadowed-by-weakening-us-commitment-and-inaction-on-ukraine/
NATO's High-Stakes Summit: Buying Time to Fill the Gaps - RUSI, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/natos-high-stakes-summit-buying-time-fill-gaps
With unity on the line, NATO leaders gather for historic summit | PBS News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/with-unity-on-the-line-nato-leaders-gather-for-historic-summit
Pre-summit press conference by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte ahead of the NATO Summit in The Hague, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_236418.htm
Joint press conference by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with the Prime Minister of Sweden Ulf Kristersson, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_236259.htm
NATO wants a 'focused' summit amid wars in Iran and Ukraine - Defense News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2025/06/24/nato-wants-a-focused-summit-amid-wars-in-iran-and-ukraine/
Putin offers to help mediate the Iran-Israel conflict | AP News, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-israel-iran-03d60264ef63da388001baa68e11f5df
Between Two Fires: Kremlin's Loss of Leverage Exposed By Israel ..., accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/06/20/between-two-fires-kremlins-loss-of-leverage-exposed-by-israel-iran-conflict-a89521
The fighting between Iran and Israel raises questions about Russia's influence in the Middle East, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/russia-iran-israel-middle-east-ukraine-war-a18097f05fb4e137b6a7b54cb4068ab7
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy, accessed June 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/us-attack-iran-israel-reaction-united-nations-c10cc46ec236816d958ced2497a11464
War in Iran: China's Short- and Long-term Strategic Calculations ..., accessed June 24, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/06/war-in-iran-chinas-short-and-long-term-strategic-calculations/
US attacks on Iran risk global conflict, Russia and China warn - Al Jazeera, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/23/us-attacks-on-iran-risk-global-conflict-russia-and-china-warn
China's Hard Fought Leverage In The Middle East Evaporates As Beijing Watched Iran-Israel War Helplessly - EurAsian Times, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.eurasiantimes.com/chinas-hard-fought-leverage-in-the-middl/
The Israel-Iran War Exposes Beijing's Limited Strategic Flexibility - The Soufan Center, accessed June 24, 2025, https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2025-june-19/
Israel-Iran War: Regional Reactions | Royal United Services Institute - RUSI, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israel-iran-war-regional-reactions
Secretary-General's remarks to the Security Council - on threats to international peace and security [as delivered] - the United Nations, accessed June 24, 2025, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-06-22/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-threats-international-peace-and-security-delivered
Copyright 2025 DubzWorld
Comments
Post a Comment