Tensions between Israel and Iran erupted into a full-scale confrontation on June 13, 2025, after Israel launched a sweeping air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. The operation, codenamed “Rising Lion”, was described by Israeli officials as a preemptive move against what they see as an imminent existential threat. In response, Iran unleashed waves of missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, marking a dangerous shift in regional dynamics and raising concerns of a broader Middle East war.

Operation “Rising Lion”: Israel’s Calculated Offensive

Israel’s military campaign involved over 200 fighter jets in coordinated strikes against key Iranian nuclear sites, including the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Khorramabad. The operation also targeted ballistic missile production centres and high-ranking Iranian military officials, among them IRGC Commander Hossein Salami and Armed Forces Chief Mohammad Bagheri.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the action as a necessary strike to protect the country’s survival. He emphasized that the campaign would continue “for as many days as it takes to remove this threat,” highlighting Israel’s resolve to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Despite expecting Iran to reconsider its stance or pursue diplomatic talks, Israel was met with swift and forceful retaliation. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the airstrikes as a “declaration of war,” vowing a severe and unrelenting response that would leave Israel “helpless.”

Iran’s Retaliation and the UN Emergency Session

The same day, Iran submitted an urgent request to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), demanding global condemnation of Israel’s aggression. During an emergency session at the UN headquarters in New York, Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani called the airstrikes “a direct assault on international law” and promised a “decisive and proportionate” response.

As the UNSC deliberated, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on Israel, a move that underlined Tehran’s readiness and willingness to escalate. The strikes targeted Israeli population centers, intensifying the global call for de-escalation.

Global Leaders React: Division in the Ranks

The international response revealed deep divisions among world powers. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte described the situation as a critical crisis that required “urgent diplomatic intervention” to prevent a broader conflict.

UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer also weighed in, labeling the reports of airstrikes “deeply concerning” and urging all parties to step back from the brink of war, emphasizing the need for calm and diplomacy in restoring stability.

On the other hand, China condemned Israel’s air raids as clear violations of Iranian sovereignty. Russia, through its UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, echoed Iran’s stance, condemning the attacks as dangerous and unlawful, and called for immediate restraint and diplomatic engagement.

However, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský voiced strong support for Israel’s actions, calling them a “reasonable reaction” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. He insisted that Israel’s air campaign was a necessary deterrent to ensure Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.

The United States, while officially denying involvement in the attacks, made its position clear. President Donald Trump publicly praised the Israeli strikes as “excellent”, reiterated America’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself, and warned Iran not to retaliate against U.S. forces. His dual message of strength and diplomacy revealed the contradictions in his foreign policy, particularly when compared to his previous promises to end wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

The Nuclear Question: Is Iran Building a Bomb?

While Israel insists that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons, intelligence assessments present a more nuanced view. The January 2025 report by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that Iran is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, though it remains capable of doing so rapidly.

A May 2025 report by the Institute for Science and International Security estimated that Iran’s current uranium stockpile, enriched to 60%, could be converted into weapons-grade uranium for nine nuclear bombs within three weeks. An IAEA report, cited by AP, noted that Iran’s uranium reserves had increased by nearly 50% since February 2025, totalling 408.6 kilograms—more than enough for multiple nuclear weapons if enriched further.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful and has dismissed IAEA concerns as unfounded. Nevertheless, its refusal to fully cooperate with international investigations continues to raise alarms about its true intentions.

While Russia and China defend Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they, like many others, acknowledge the potential risks posed by the country’s advanced nuclear enrichment activities.

Israel’s Fear of a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Despite being widely believed to possess its own undeclared nuclear arsenal, Israel views Iran’s nuclear development as a clear and present existential threat. Analysts suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran could embolden its regional proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, significantly heightening the threat of missile attacks and destabilizing the Middle East even further.

Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute emphasized that Israel’s superior air power and intelligence capabilities enable it to launch precision strikes deep inside Iranian territory. Yet, the risk of retaliation and broader regional fallout remains extremely high.

Analyst Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group warned that Iran’s retaliation, while currently limited, could intensify if provocations continue, potentially accelerating Iran’s nuclear ambitions and plunging the region into deeper chaos.

The Institute for the Study of War reported that Israel’s strikes temporarily degraded Iran’s air defense systems and command structures. But even as Israel’s operation may have gained tactical advantage, it risks provoking a cycle of retaliation that could spiral out of control.

Hypocrisy in Global Leadership?

Despite calls for de-escalation, the global response has been marred by inconsistency and perceived hypocrisy. Countries like the United States, while urging restraint, have continued to provide military and political backing to one side, leaving critics to argue that such support indirectly fuels further conflict.

President Trump’s endorsement of Israel’s strikes contrasts sharply with his earlier promises to end global conflicts. His warning to Iran—“make a deal before there is nothing left”—has further inflamed tensions and undermined the prospects for diplomacy.

Critics also point to a recurring pattern of tolerance or even benefit from prolonged conflicts by major powers. From the Russia-Ukraine war to the enduring violence between Israel and Gaza, global inaction and selective outrage have prolonged suffering, created humanitarian disasters, and contributed to global instability.

Preventing Future Conflicts: A Call to Action

The situation has once again underscored the urgent need for global diplomatic intervention. Instead of responding after violence erupts, world leaders must act preemptively to defuse tensions and address underlying causes of conflict. Diplomacy, not destruction, must define international relations.

Key steps must include:

• Confidence-building measures between regional powers

• Support for grassroots peace movements

• Strengthened international disarmament frameworks

• Balanced media coverage that reflects both realities and responsibilities

As the Israel–Iran confrontation unfolds, one thing is clear: the cost of inaction is far too high. Leaders must prioritise diplomacy over division, peace over partisanship, and justice over geopolitics.

In the end, it is not just Iran or Israel that stands to lose. The entire world bears the consequences of unchecked conflict. Whether through economic shockwaves, global insecurity, or humanitarian tragedy, no nation is truly insulated from war. Now, more than ever, the world must choose peace.