Crisis Between Israel and Iran: What We Know So Far About the Attacks

Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.

Illustration: Lincoln Agnew

On June 13, 2025, tensions between Israel and Iran reached a new level of gravity, with direct military actions, exchanges of threats, and intense diplomatic maneuvers. The conflict, which had been unfolding over the years on multiple fronts, including the war in Syria, cyberattacks, and sabotage, became more explicit with offensive actions on Iranian territory.

The most significant episode occurred with the revelation that Israel conducted missile strikes on targets in central Iran. Iran’s response came in the form of multiple explosions in Isfahan province, which hosts one of the country’s main nuclear facilities. Although Iranian state media initially downplayed the damage, independent sources indicated that military and nuclear facilities may have been hit, which would represent a significant escalation. The Iranian government declared that most of the missiles were intercepted and sought to convey that no critical infrastructure had been harmed, but reiterated its message of retaliation against Israel.

The international community quickly mobilized. The United States, despite being a historic ally of Israel, called for moderation and reiterated that it was not involved in the offensive actions. The Trump administration, pressured by the need to maintain some stability in the Middle East, sought to distance itself from Israel’s initiative.

At the same time, countries like Brazil, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and China expressed concern over the possibility of an open war. China, in particular, condemned Israel’s attacks strongly and called for an emergency meeting at the UN Security Council, urging “responsibility and restraint from all parties.”

The Israeli actions appear to have been calibrated to target military and symbolic objectives without provoking an all-out war. Experts suggest that the goal was to weaken Iran’s nuclear program and send a message of strength, especially after missile launches by Iran months earlier, which also posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel’s military superiority in the region. At the same time, Iran seeks to maintain its image of resistance without triggering a full-scale war, given its internal economic situation and the fear of losing international support.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, immediately reacted in diplomatic channels. He sent an official letter to the UN Security Council denouncing the attacks as a deliberate aggression against its sovereignty and demanding a strong international response. In the document, the Foreign Minister classified the bombings as “flagrant violations of international law” and warned that Tehran would exercise its “inalienable right to self-defense,” signaling that the country is preparing a proportional retaliation. Iranian diplomacy also accused the United States of complicity, considering Washington a “direct sponsor” of the aggression.

The content of the letter is revealing both of Iran’s legal stance and the gravity the regime attributes to the attack. The mention of the violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of member states, reinforces Iran’s strategy of seeking legal and diplomatic backing, while also asserting its legitimacy to react militarily under Article 51 (the right to self-defense).

Internally, Iran now faces dual pressure: to preserve the regime's image of strength and sovereignty while avoiding a war on multiple fronts that could further destabilize the country, already weakened economically. The letter’s rhetoric, at once firm and calculated, suggests that Iran’s response may be calibrated to avoid a direct escalation with Israel or a confrontation with the US.

On the international stage, the UN Security Council was convened in an emergency session but remains paralyzed due to divisions between major powers. The prospect of a resolution condemning Israel was immediately blocked by the expectation of a US veto, which undermines any effective action by the body and highlights the limitations of multilateralism in conflicts involving strategic allies with veto power.

On the US side, President Donald Trump adopted an ambiguous and escalatory stance. In a post on Truth Social, he stated that Iran still has “time to avoid a massacre,” urging Tehran to sign an agreement on its nuclear program. The veiled threat (“just do it, before it’s too late”) adds to the bellicose rhetoric that characterizes his foreign policy, suggesting that the US would support further attacks if Iran does not back down. At the same time, Trump tries to present himself as a diplomatic pressure figure, using the conflict as leverage to resume nuclear negotiations on his own terms.

This combination of military actions, diplomatic threats, and international pressure outlines a highly volatile scenario. For now, the crisis is being managed with military caution, but with escalating rhetoric, increasing the risks of miscalculation by both sides. The Middle East once again finds itself at a crossroads between a possible normalization of tensions and the outbreak of a regional conflict of unpredictable proportions. The developments of the coming days will depend on the ability of the actors involved, particularly the United States, Israel, Iran, and regional players like Hezbollah, to contain escalation impulses and preserve diplomatic channels. However, as the Security Council remains impotent and aggressive rhetoric prevails, uncertainty about the outcome of this crisis grows.