By: Junaid Suhais

The relationship between Israel and Iran, long characterized by a “shadow war” involving covert operations, cyber-attacks, and proxy conflicts, has been a defining feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics for decades. Tensions had been steadily mounting, with confrontations in 2024 serving as a grim prelude to a more overt and dangerous phase of hostilities. These earlier clashes signaled a shift from indirect engagement to a willingness for direct military exchanges, setting the stage for the events of June 2025.

June 13 to 25, 2025, witnessed an unprecedented escalation into direct and sustained military conflict between Israel and Iran. This confrontation significantly involved the United States, inflicted considerable human and material costs on both sides and culminated in a tenuous US-brokered ceasefire, leaving the region on a knife’s edge.

This report will outline the chronological progression of this 12-day conflict, detailing the initial Israeli offensive, Iran’s retaliatory measures, the subsequent escalation involving US military intervention, the profound humanitarian impact, the complex diplomatic maneuvers leading to a ceasefire, and the varied international reactions to this critical period of instability.

I.    The Spark: Israel’s Offensive and Initial Retaliation (June 13 – June 15, 2025)

The simmering tensions between Israel and Iran boiled over on June 13, 2025, marking the beginning of a direct and intense military confrontation that would last for twelve days. This period was characterized by a major Israeli offensive, followed by swift Iranian retaliation, setting a dangerous precedent for the days to come.

Israel’s Initial Large-Scale Operation (June 13)

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a significant and anticipated military operation against Iran. The primary targets of this offensive were strategically chosen, focusing on Iran’s nuclear facilities, key military sites, and critical regime infrastructure. The stated rationale behind this operation was twofold: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, an ambition Tehran has consistently denied, and to respond to nearly two years of escalating conflict with Iran-backed militant groups. Reports indicated that Israel employed a combination of airstrikes, utilizing warplanes and drones, some of which were allegedly smuggled into Iran before the operation.

Expansion of Israeli Strikes (June 14-15)

Following the initial wave of attacks, Israel did not relent. On June 14 and 15, Israeli airstrikes expanded in scope, extending to include targets within Iran’s energy industry. The intensity of the offensive was sustained, with Israel unleashing airstrikes across various parts of Iran for a third consecutive day. Israeli leadership also threatened the application of even greater force, signaling a commitment to achieving its strategic objectives.

Iran’s Immediate Retaliatory Actions (June 13-15)

Iran’s response to the Israeli offensive was swift and forceful. Beginning on June 13 and continuing through June 15, Iran initiated a series of missile and drone attacks targeting Israel. Iranian missiles reportedly struck several locations in Israel, including the Nevatim and Hatzerim military bases. Civilian areas and cities such as Beersheba, Tel Aviv, the Negev region, and Haifa also reported missile impacts. Tehran was quick to claim success for its retaliatory strikes, asserting “precise hits” and highlighting what it described as its “growing offensive missile power”. This initial exchange set a dangerous tit-for-tat pattern that would characterize the conflict in the days that followed.

II.    Escalation, US Intervention, and Continued Hostilities (June 16 – June 22, 2025)

The conflict rapidly intensified following the initial exchanges, drawing in international actors and culminating in direct military intervention by the United States. This period was marked by sustained hostilities, significant military actions by both Israel and Iran and early, though ultimately insufficient, diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis.

Intensified Military Exchanges and Diplomatic Overtures (June 16-20)

From June 16 to June 20, Israel and Iran continued to trade heavy strikes, with civilian populations in flashpoint areas bearing the brunt of the escalating violence. Iran undertook several notable military actions during this phase. Air defense systems were activated in Bushehr, the location of Iran’s only operating nuclear power plant, indicating heightened alert levels. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced it had fired its “17th wave of missiles” at Israeli military facilities. Furthermore, Iranian military spokespersons claimed the use of long-range and ultra-heavy missiles against Israeli military sites, defense industries, and command and control centers.

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted on June 16 that Israel’s strikes had significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. Amidst the escalating military actions, tentative diplomatic efforts emerged. On June 20, Iranian and European officials met in Geneva for talks. An Iranian source described the discussions as initially tense but having become “much more positive.”

However, Iran firmly maintained that its uranium enrichment capability was a “bold red line” and non-negotiable. Concurrently, then-US President Donald Trump indicated he would allow up to two weeks for negotiations before deciding whether to launch further US strikes on Iran.

Direct US Military Involvement (Around June 21-22)

The window for diplomacy proved short. As the conflict wore on, the United States moved towards direct military intervention. President Trump held Situation Room meetings, for instance on June 18, to discuss US options. Sources indicated that while he was receptive to arguments, including from Israel, that only the US could decisively neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he was also wary of becoming bogged down in a prolonged foreign conflict.

Around June 21-22 (local time), the United States launched direct military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The targets were three key Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These were described as among the “most critical and fortified sites” in Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel had reportedly been unable to destroy with its arsenal. The US military employed B-2 stealth bombers, which dropped “bunker-buster” bombs (Massive Ordnance Penetrators) on the Fordo and Natanz facilities, while Tomahawk cruise missiles struck the Isfahan site. The stated objective of the US operation was the “destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity” and to “stop the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”. However, a preliminary classified US intelligence report, emerging around June 24, suggested that the American bombing had set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, raising questions about the long-term efficacy of the strikes.

III. The Human Cost: Casualties and Civilian Impact

The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran exacted a significant human toll, with casualties and widespread disruption reported in both nations. The use of ballistic missiles, drones, and airstrikes in populated areas led to civilian deaths, injuries, and displacement, underscoring the devastating impact of modern warfare on non-combatants.

Casualties in Israel

According to data compiled after 12 days of fighting (by June 25), Iranian ballistic missile attacks on Israel resulted in the deaths of approximately 28 people. Notably, all but one of these fatalities were civilians. The conflict also led to over 3,000 wounded, with Israel’s Health Ministry reporting a total of 3,238 people hospitalized. Among the hospitalized, 23 were seriously injured, 111 moderately, and 2,933 lightly. An additional 138 individuals suffered from acute anxiety, and the conditions of 30 others were undetermined at the time of reporting.

The vast majority of casualties in Israel were civilians. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported that only seven soldiers were hurt in one missile impact in central Israel, and one off-duty soldier was killed in Beersheba Iranian attacks also caused significant material damage and displacement. Israeli authorities stated that more than 9,000 people were displaced from their homes, dozens of which were damaged or destroyed. At least 31 ballistic missile impacts were reported in populated areas or on critical infrastructure sites, including a power station in southern Israel, an oil refinery in Haifa, and a university in central Israel.

Casualties in Iran

Assessing the full scale of casualties in Iran proved more complex due to varying reports from different sources. However, available information indicated a substantial number of deaths and injuries.

• On June 16, CNN reported at least 224 people had been killed in Iran since hostilities began.
• By June 21, The Defense Post, citing the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a US-based NGO, reported that Israeli strikes had killed at least 657 people in Iran. This figure included 263 civilians (among them, HRANA had verified the identities of more than 20 children, mostly in Tehran) and 164 members of the military
• By June 24, HRANA, as reported by Wikipedia, stated that over 900 people had been killed and over 3,000 wounded by Israeli strikes. The Iranian Health Ministry also reported over 4,000 people wounded
• An updated HRANA report on June 24 detailed 974 killed (comprising 268 military personnel, 387 civilians, and 319 unidentified individuals) and 3,458 injured

Beyond the overall numbers, Israeli strikes reportedly targeted and killed several senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists. Among those named were IRGC Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri, IRGC commander Hossein Salami, senior IRGC commander Gholam Ali Rashid, and IRGC Aerospace Force commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Nuclear scientists reported killed included Sayyed Mohammad Reza Seddighi Saber (who led the SPND’s Shahid Karimi Group), Fereydoon Abbasi, and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi. Ali Shamkhani, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council, was initially reported killed but later confirmed to be alive, albeit severely injured.

Disruption to Daily Life and Evacuations

The conflict caused significant disruption to daily life in both countries. In Israel, emergency restrictions led to the closure of schools and workplaces for a period. The heightened security risks also prompted the evacuation of foreign nationals. For example, South Korea arranged for the evacuation of its citizens from both Israel and Iran, highlighting the international concern over safety and the conflict’s broader impact.

IV.  The Path to a Fragile Ceasefire (June 23 – June 25, 2025)

After nearly two weeks of intense military exchanges and escalating tensions, diplomatic efforts, primarily spearheaded by the United States, led to the announcement of a ceasefire. However, the path to this uneasy truce was fraught with accusations, violations, and uncertainty, highlighting the deep-seated mistrust between the belligerents.

US-Brokered Ceasefire Announcement (June 23)

On June 23, 2025, then-US President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. The terms of the agreement reportedly included a phased halt to hostilities, with Iran expected to cease strikes on Israel 12 hours before Israel would stop its attacks on Iran. This announcement offered a glimmer of hope for de-escalation after days of escalating conflict.

Initial Fragility and Accusations (June 23-24)

The nascent ceasefire was immediately tested. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office thanked President Trump for his role and declared that Israel had achieved its primary objective of “eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat”. However, the situation on the ground remained volatile.

Mutual accusations of violations quickly surfaced. Israel accused Iran of a “severe violation” of the ceasefire by launching missiles after the truce was supposed to be in effect and vowed a forceful response. Iran, in turn, denied violating the truce. Reports from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) indicated that Iran conducted at least seven ballistic missile attacks targeting Israel around the time the ceasefire was due to be implemented. Five of these attacks occurred before the ceasefire officially went into effect (12:00 AM ET on June 24), one at 12:06 AM ET, and another around 3:25 AM ET. One such post-ceasefire Iranian missile attack reportedly killed four people in Beersheba. In response to these perceived violations, Israel conducted retaliatory strikes, including an attack on an Iranian radar installation north of Tehran.

The fragility of the ceasefire drew a sharp reaction from President Trump, who reportedly expressed intense anger as the truce appeared to falter. He was said to be particularly unhappy with Israel at one point, publicly urging them via social media: “DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS”.

Ceasefire Takes Hold (June 24-25)

Despite the initial breaches and heightened rhetoric, by June 24-25, the ceasefire began to take hold more firmly. Both Israeli and Iranian officials issued statements affirming their commitment to the truce, conditional on the other side’s adherence. In Israel, signs of a return to normalcy began to emerge as authorities lifted emergency restrictions. Schools and workplaces, which had been closed due to the conflict, started to reopen. Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s busiest international gateway near Tel Aviv, was expected to fully reopen on Wednesday, June 25, allowing thousands of passengers to travel.

In a common pattern following such conflicts, both Israel and Iran declared victory in the 12-day confrontation, each framing the outcome as favorable to their strategic interests.

Lingering Tensions and Unresolved Issues

The ceasefire, while holding, did not resolve the underlying issues that fueled the conflict. Iran announced on June 24 that it was taking measures to continue its nuclear program and was assessing the damage to its facilities caused by Israeli and US strikes. This statement underscored Tehran’s defiance and its intention to press forward with its nuclear activities. Meanwhile, President Trump continued to insist that Iran’s nuclear program had faced “obliteration,” a claim that contradicted some intelligence assessments suggesting a more limited setback. These diverging narratives and Iran’s stated intentions pointed to a future where tensions over its nuclear ambitions would likely persist.

 Key Points: Path to Ceasefire                                                                                                                                    

• US President Trump announced a ceasefire agreement on June 23.
• Initial period marked by accusations of violations from both Israel and Iran.
• Iran reportedly launched missiles post-ceasefire deadline, causing casualties in Beersheba.
• Israel retaliated for perceived violations.
• By June 24-25, the ceasefire largely held, with both sides claiming victory.
• Iran vowed to continue its nuclear program, indicating unresolved core issues.

• Global Reactions and Diplomatic Landscape

The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, marked by its intensity and the direct involvement of the United States, elicited a wide range of reactions from the international community. Global and regional powers, as well as international organizations, weighed in on the crisis, reflecting diverse geopolitical interests and concerns over regional stability and nuclear non-proliferation.

United Nations

The United Nations voiced grave concerns throughout the escalation. UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued stark warnings, fearing the conflict could spiral into “a fire no one can control” and potentially lead to a “catastrophe”. He described the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as a “perilous turn” for the region. Guterres consistently urged for an immediate ceasefire and a return to “serious, sustained negotiations” to de-escalate the situation and address the underlying causes of the conflict.

Major Powers

United States: Beyond its role as a direct military participant and the primary broker of the ceasefire, the US administration, under President Trump, emphasized that it did not seek regime change in Iran, stating a desire to avoid “chaos”. This stance aimed to manage perceptions of US objectives amidst its significant military intervention.

European Union: The EU’s response was characterized by calls for de-escalation but also by internal divisions. Officially, the EU called on all sides to exercise restraint, abide by international law, and refrain from actions that could worsen the crisis. However, significant disagreements emerged among member states regarding the legality of Israel’s strikes and the extent of its right to self-defense. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself, a position that was not unanimously supported by all EU members, highlighting the complexities in forging a unified European stance. Diplomatic efforts included talks in Geneva where German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, along with other European officials, engaged with Iran in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to de-escalate the nuclear aspects of the crisis.

United Kingdom: The UK Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House of Commons on June 16, updating Parliament on the evolving conflict and the government’s response.

France: France reaffirmed its commitment to diplomacy as a means to resolve the tensions, aligning with broader European calls for de-escalation.

Russia: Moscow condemned the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, expressing concern that the escalation posed risks of further destabilization across the Middle East.

China: Beijing’s response evolved during the crisis. Initially, China condemned the Israeli attack on June 13 as a “violation of Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity”. However, its rhetoric subsequently shifted to become more measured, focusing on brokering dialogue and a ceasefire rather than outright denunciation of Israeli actions. Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly urged a ceasefire in a phone call with the Russian leader. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi engaged with his Iranian and Israeli counterparts; in his call with the Israeli Foreign Minister, he termed Israel’s strikes “unacceptable” but notably refrained from using the word “condemning”.

Key Regional and Other Nations

Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba initially condemned Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets as “totally intolerable”. However, Japan later appeared to distance itself from G7 statements that affirmed Israel’s “right to defend itself,” with Prime Minister Ishiba emphasizing Japan’s position of urging “maximum restraint” from both Israel and Iran.

South Korea: Seoul expressed alarm at reports of Iranian missiles penetrating Israel’s sophisticated missile defense systems The South Korean government took practical steps by evacuating its nationals from both Iran and Israel and raising travel alert levels for these countries, urging citizens to leave immediately.

Saudi Arabia: A key regional power, Saudi Arabia welcomed the US-brokered ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran on June 24, reflecting a broader desire within the Gulf region to see a reduction in tensions that could threaten regional stability and economic interests.

VII.  Conclusion: An Uneasy Calm and an Uncertain Future

The twelve days from June 13 to June 25, 2025, marked a perilous chapter in the long-standing animosity between Israel and Iran. The period witnessed a rapid and dangerous escalation from targeted Israeli strikes to widespread Iranian retaliation, direct military intervention by the United States, and significant human and material costs. The eventual US-brokered ceasefire brought a halt to the immediate hostilities, but it settled upon a landscape fraught with unresolved tensions and deep-seated mistrust.

Recap of the 12-Day Crisis

The crisis began with a major Israeli offensive targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, justified as a preemptive measure against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and a response to ongoing

proxy conflicts. Iran retaliated with missile and drone barrages against Israeli targets. The conflict quickly escalated, drawing in the United States, which launched its own strikes against key Iranian nuclear facilities. This period was characterized by significant casualties on both sides, particularly among civilians, and widespread disruption. Diplomatic efforts, primarily led by the US, eventually culminated in a fragile ceasefire agreement that took effect around June 24-25.

Immediate Aftermath

In the immediate aftermath, an uneasy calm descended upon the region. The ceasefire, though initially marred by accusations of violations, largely held. Both Israel and Iran publicly claimed strategic victories, seeking to project strength and resolve to their domestic and international audiences. While the region stepped back from the brink of a wider conflagration, it remained on high alert. The lifting of emergency restrictions in Israel signaled a tentative return to normalcy, but the psychological scars and the heightened sense of insecurity lingered.

Unresolved Issues and Future Outlook

The ceasefire did little to address the fundamental drivers of the conflict. Iran’s nuclear program remains a central point of contention, with Tehran vowing to continue its efforts and assess the damage to its facilities. The conflicting assessments of the impact of Israeli and US strikes on this program—with the US claiming significant degradation and some intelligence reports suggesting a more limited setback—highlight the ongoing uncertainty. The deep-seated animosity and competing regional ambitions of Israel and Iran persist, suggesting that the ceasefire is more of a pause than a resolution.

The long-term effectiveness of the US strikes in deterring Iran’s nuclear progress and the overall durability of the ceasefire remain highly uncertain. Future provocations, miscalculations, or shifts in the regional balance of power could easily reignite hostilities. The underlying security dilemmas that plague the Middle East have not been resolved, and the potential for future conflict remains significant.

Broader Implications

The June 2025 conflict carries several broader implications:

• Regional Volatility: It starkly underscored the volatile security dynamics of the Middle East and the ease with which long-simmering tensions can erupt into direct, large-scale military confrontations.
• Great Power Involvement: The direct US military intervention highlighted the potential for regional conflicts to draw in global powers, with significant implications for international stability and power balances.
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation: The focus on Iran’s nuclear facilities raises critical questions about the future of nuclear non-proliferation efforts in the region and globally. The attacks could perversely incentivize Iran or other nations to accelerate clandestine weapons programs as a deterrent.
• Humanitarian Concerns: The significant civilian casualties and displacement serve as a grim reminder of the human cost of such conflicts and the challenges of protecting non-combatants in modern warfare.

In conclusion, while the ceasefire of June 25, 2025, provided a temporary reprieve, the Israel-Iran relationship and the broader Middle Eastern security landscape remain precarious. Addressing the root causes of instability, fostering credible diplomatic channels, and strengthening non- proliferation regimes will be crucial to preventing future, potentially more devastating, conflicts.

 Key Takeaways from the Conflict                                                                                                                                    

• Unprecedented direct military escalation between Israel and Iran over 12 days.
• Significant US military intervention targeting Iranian nuclear sites.
• Substantial human cost, with hundreds killed and thousands wounded on both sides.
• A fragile US-brokered ceasefire halted immediate hostilities but left core issues unresolved.
• Iran’s nuclear program remains a central point of contention and future risk.
• The conflict highlighted extreme regional volatility and the potential for wider escalation.