The Iran-Israel Conflict: A Balanced Analysis of the June 2025 Escalation and Prospects for Stability

 

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive examination of the June 2025 Iran-Israel conflict and its fragile ceasefire. It delves into the complex interplay of strategic objectives, domestic pressures, and a fractured international landscape that characterized this escalation. By integrating the diverse and often critical perspectives of Professor John Mearsheimer, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter, COL. Douglas Macgregor, and John Kerry, this analysis offers a multi-faceted understanding of the conflict. The findings reveal the inherent limitations of purely military solutions, the performative aspects of certain diplomatic maneuvers, and the profound, far-reaching implications that extend beyond the immediate belligerents. The report concludes that lasting peace remains elusive without a fundamental re-evaluation of strategic approaches and a renewed commitment to consistent international law.

 I. Introduction

Contextual Background of the Iran-Israel Conflict

The Iran-Israel rivalry is rooted in a complex interplay of ideological, historical, and geopolitical factors. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran adopted a resolutely anti-Zionist position, while Israel has long regarded Iran’s expanding regional influence and nuclear ambitions as existential threats. Traditionally, this antagonism has played out through indirect means — including so-called proxy conflicts, cyberattacks, and clandestine operations — particularly across Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian territories, by both sides. However, the events of June 2025 marked a perilous escalation, shifting the long-standing shadow war into direct military confrontation.

While Israel publicly emphasizes the nuclear threat as central to its security calculus, some analysts contend that its deeper strategic objective lies in preserving its qualitative military edge — a long-standing policy priority supported by the United States — and, more broadly, in maintaining regional strategic primacy. From this perspective, a nuclear-capable Iran would not only challenge Israel’s deterrence posture but also constrain its operational freedom and  hegemonic leadership role in the region. Critical interpretations also situate this dynamic within a wider historical arc of Western and neoconservative strategies in the Middle East, including controversial proposals — such as those discussed by scholar Bernard Lewis or former U.S. General Wesley Clark — that envisioned redrawing regional borders or confronting a set of strategically significant states. While such frameworks remain debated, they underscore the extent to which the Iran-Israel conflict cannot be fully understood in isolation from broader regional and global power structures.

Brief Timeline and Overview of the June 2025 Escalation and Ceasefire

The escalation in June 2025 unfolded rapidly, beginning with Israel’s direct military actions. On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a series of “preventative” airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Israeli officials justified these attacks as necessary to neutralize what they described as an imminent threat posed by Iran’s accelerating nuclear program. This marked a significant departure from the previous pattern of indirect or covert engagements.

Iran responded with a large-scale missile and drone barrage against Israeli territory, with some successfully breaching Israel’s multi-layered air defense systems. This direct retaliation signaled a dangerous new phase in the longstanding confrontation. The United States entered the conflict on June 21, launching what it called “massive precision strikes” against Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz. President Donald Trump declared these sites "completely and fully obliterated," reflecting a major escalation in U.S. military involvement and a decisive shift in the conflict’s strategic balance.

The twelve-day confrontation culminated on June 24 with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement. Under its terms, Iran would halt attacks first, followed twelve hours later by Israel, with the ceasefire officially commencing at 04:00 GMT. Yet the fragility of this truce became immediately evident, as mutual accusations of violations emerged within hours — underscoring the persistent mistrust and unresolved tensions between the two sides.

This escalation occurred against the backdrop of an already volatile regional environment: the unresolved Palestinian question, including the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack and the subsequent Israeli operations in Gaza and the West Bank; ongoing skirmishes with Hezbollah along the Lebanese border; and increasing Houthi involvement in regional maritime disruptions in the Red Sea. These developments contributed to a wider strategic context in which the June 2025 confrontation was not merely bilateral, but part of a more complex and dangerous regional equation.

Purpose of the Report

This report seeks to provide a balanced and comprehensive analysis of the June 2025 Iran-Israel conflict. By incorporating a range of diverse and often critical perspectives — including those of Professor John Mearsheimer, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, and former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — the report aims to move beyond reductive or unilateral narratives. Its objective is to present a nuanced understanding of the conflict’s underlying drivers, the strategic motivations of the principal actors, its wider ramifications for regional and global stability, and the complex, uncertain prospects for de-escalation and future peace.

While this report emphasizes the analyses of critical and independent voices, it also acknowledges the more conventional perspectives advanced by Western political leaders, foreign ministers, prominent senators, and major media outlets. These mainstream narratives typically frame the conflict in terms of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its role in regional destabilization, emphasizing the perceived legitimacy of allegedly preemptive defense measures and the strategic necessity of allied deterrence. By engaging both critical and official viewpoints, this report aims to offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex strategic and moral debates surrounding the June 2025 escalation.

II. The Iran-Israel Conflict: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Strategic Objectives and Motivations

The June 2025 escalation in the Iran-Israel conflict was shaped by a complex intersection of strategic objectives, regional dynamics, and domestic political imperatives. Both parties were driven not only by immediate security concerns but also by broader, long-standing geopolitical calculations.

Israel’s Motivations

Israel’s military actions were underpinned by a multi-layered strategic calculus aimed at reshaping the regional balance of power while addressing what it perceives as an increasingly narrow window to act. In the wake of its military successes against Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, Israeli policymakers viewed Iran’s position as vulnerable and believed that a decisive blow could degrade Tehran’s regional influence. While publicly framed as a preemptive measure to halt Iran’s nuclear advances, the operation reflected deeper strategic ambitions.

A primary driver remains Israel’s belief that a nuclear-capable Iran poses an existential threat — a perception sharpened in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and reinforced by the stalled prospects of a renewed U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement. Israeli leaders have long argued that military action may be necessary to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability, especially given their skepticism toward diplomatic containment. The assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and the weakened state of Iran's regional proxies were seen by Israeli decision-makers as creating a temporary but critical strategic opening.

Beyond the nuclear dimension, some Israeli commentators and strategic thinkers have articulated broader objectives: the maintenance of Israel’s long-standing qualitative military edge (QME) in the region, a policy explicitly supported by successive U.S. administrations. From this perspective, a nuclear Iran would not only challenge Israel’s deterrence posture but would also undermine its status as the region’s uncontested military power — a shift with implications for deterrence, diplomacy, and strategic autonomy.

Moreover, critics and some international analysts have suggested that elements within Israel’s leadership view the conflict as an opportunity to fundamentally weaken, or even destabilize, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that the war would not end until Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was removed from power lent credence to the perception that regime change — if not officially declared policy — may be an aspirational objective. In this context, some observers have drawn parallels to earlier Western strategies, including speculative interpretations of the so-called “Bernard Lewis map” or former U.S. General Wesley Clark’s remarks on plans to reshape the Middle East through regime changes in states seen as adversarial.

While such perspectives remain debated, they reflect a wider discourse in which the Israel-Iran confrontation is not merely about containment or deterrence but potentially about long-term regional reconfiguration. This broader frame helps situate Israel’s June 2025 actions within a strategic vision that extends well beyond the immediate battlefield. 

 Iran's Motivations and Response Options 

From Tehran’s perspective, the Israeli airstrikes were perceived not merely as tactical provocations, but as a potential existential threat — particularly by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s military and security establishment. Given the scope and symbolism of the strikes, Iranian leadership likely interpreted them as part of a broader attempt to weaken or collapse the Islamic Republic’s strategic posture. This perception increased the likelihood of a forceful and less restrained response, especially in the event of sustained military escalation.

Iran retains a diverse and formidable array of retaliatory tools, including a vast missile arsenal capable of striking Israeli territory, advanced cyber warfare capabilities, and a global network of asymmetric actors. As civilian casualties mounted — both within Iran and across its regional network of allies — the regime's incentive for a diplomatic off-ramp diminished, reinforcing the logic of escalation.

Yet Iran’s response cannot be understood solely through strategic or military logic. Deep-seated ideological and nationalist currents also play a central role in shaping its actions. Supreme Leader Khamenei, despite being widely portrayed in the West as a hardliner, has frequently invoked Persian civilizational pride and Iran’s historical continuity as a sovereign state. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, has remarked on the depth of Iranian attachment to their national identity and history, noting that even among the religious elite, there exists a profound cultural patriotism. This complex fusion of Shi'a political thought and Persian nationalism helps explain the regime’s resilience and its framing of external pressure as a violation not only of sovereignty but of historical dignity.

While elements of Shi’a discourse do valorize martyrdom, it would be reductive — and inaccurate — to describe Iran’s strategic culture as one that “loves death.” Rather, Shi’a political philosophy emphasizes justice, resistance to oppression, and moral duty, even when these require sacrifice. In this context, readiness to confront overwhelming odds is interpreted not as fatalism but as moral steadfastness. This worldview informs the decision-making calculus of Iran’s leadership and helps explain its willingness to incur high costs in defense of what it perceives as justice and sovereignty.

The “Existential Threat” Spiral

A defining feature of the Iran-Israel conflict is its mutual existential framing. Israel regards a nuclear-capable Iran as an intolerable threat to national survival, while Iran views Israeli airstrikes — particularly those with regime-targeting overtones — as existential assaults on the sovereignty and continuity of the Islamic Republic. This dynamic creates a dangerous feedback loop: defensive actions taken by one side are interpreted by the other as aggressive escalation, thereby justifying further retaliation.

For example, Israel’s “preventative” strikes, intended to disrupt Iran’s nuclear trajectory and assert deterrence, were perceived in Tehran as a direct challenge to national survival and dignity. In response, Iranian leaders felt compelled to respond with maximum resolve. In such a structure, genuine de-escalation becomes extremely difficult, as strategic restraint by either side risks being perceived — domestically or regionally — as weakness.

Domestic Imperatives as Escalation Drivers

Both Iranian and Israeli decision-making during the June 2025 crisis were deeply influenced by internal political and societal pressures. In Iran, prolonged economic hardship — exacerbated by sanctions, inflation, and demographic challenges — has created a volatile domestic landscape. Faced with rising dissent and protest, the regime has often relied on nationalist rhetoric and external confrontation to reinforce internal cohesion and deflect attention from economic grievances. In this context, military retaliation against Israel was not only a matter of national defense but also a means of preserving regime legitimacy and asserting Iran’s agency on the world stage.

Another often-overlooked dimension of Iran’s strategic posture is its deep-rooted reluctance to rely overtly on great powers such as Russia or China for military or political support, even during periods of acute crisis. While Iran maintains diplomatic and economic ties with both states, its leadership — shaped by a long history of foreign domination and a strong nationalist ethos — has historically resisted the perception of dependency. This reluctance was implicitly acknowledged in a recent press conference by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who noted that Iran had not formally requested assistance during the June 2025 conflict. Similarly, unofficial remarks by Chinese officials emphasized Beijing’s unwillingness to be drawn into the confrontation, and Iran’s corresponding restraint in seeking such involvement.

This posture reflects a broader Iranian commitment to strategic independence, which continues to shape its external behavior even amid mounting internal and external pressures. While Tehran may pragmatically cooperate with non-Western powers, it remains wary of compromising its sovereignty — a stance that complicates simplistic readings of its alignment and limits its options during escalation.

Khamenei’s overarching strategy has consistently aimed at preserving the Islamic Republic’s ideological and institutional integrity. The nuclear program, far from being merely a military asset, is portrayed within Iran as a symbol of scientific achievement, sovereign independence, and resistance to Western coercion. As such, abandoning it outright — especially under military duress — would likely be seen not as a concession, but as a loss of dignity and autonomy.

Israel, for its part, was not immune to internal political dynamics. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced growing domestic criticism following the October 7 attacks and the failure to prevent security breaches. Reports suggest that the strikes on Iran may have temporarily bolstered his political standing and reframed his leadership image. Calls within Israel to “finish the mission” and restore deterrence created strong incentives for continued escalation, even as broader strategic risks intensified.

This interplay between domestic legitimacy and external action on both sides illustrates how internal political survival can override de-escalatory logic, reinforcing cycles of aggression and narrowing diplomatic space — even when both parties face considerable costs from continued conflict.

These anxieties are further compounded by long-standing suspicions among Iranian elites regarding Western strategic intentions. Within Iran’s political and security establishment, there is a persistent narrative that external powers aim not merely to pressure the Islamic Republic, but to ultimately dismember or reshape the region’s sovereign states.

Iranian officials — across the ideological spectrum — have frequently referenced the so-called “Bernard Lewis plan” to partition the Middle East along ethnic and sectarian lines, and former U.S. General Wesley Clark’s public statement about a post-9/11 plan to “take out” seven countries, including Iran. Within Iranian political discourse, such references are often cited as evidence of perceived efforts to weaken or dismantle the Islamic Republic and reconfigure regional power structures.

While these views are debated outside Iran, they remain influential in shaping Tehran’s threat perception and reinforce the leadership’s skepticism toward diplomatic overtures. In practice, they harden Iran’s strategic posture and complicate efforts toward de-escalation, as external pressure is often interpreted not as leverage for negotiation, but as confirmation of hostile intent.

Status of Iran's Nuclear Program

The status of Iran's nuclear program following the June 2025 strikes became a central point of contention, revealing a sharp divide between political declarations and intelligence assessments.

US/Israeli Claims vs. Intelligence Assessments

Following the strikes, President Trump publicly asserted that U.S. actions had "completely and fully obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites. Prime Minister Netanyahu echoed this sentiment, claiming Israel had "brought to ruin Iran's nuclear program" and "destroyed the critical facilities in Arak, Natanz, and Isfahan." However, early U.S. intelligence reports presented a more measured evaluation, suggesting that the strikes had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by "a few months," rather than destroying it entirely. These reports noted that while the Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan sites sustained "significant damage," they were "not totally destroyed."

Status of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and Centrifuges

Intelligence assessments further indicated that portions of Iran’s highly enriched uranium (HEU) — necessary for creating a nuclear weapon — had been relocated prior to the strikes and thus remained intact. Moreover, Iran’s centrifuge infrastructure, critical for enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels, was described as "largely intact." Estimates suggest that Iran possesses enough 60% enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons, if enriched to 90%. Since 2021, Iran has reportedly produced advanced centrifuges without oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), further complicating verification efforts.

Pre-Strike Preparations and Tunnel Sealing

Satellite imagery revealed that Iran appeared to anticipate the strikes and took active steps to safeguard key assets. Photos showed trucks and bulldozers at the Fordo facility on June 19, with subsequent images confirming that tunnel entrances had been sealed with earth prior to the bombardment. These preparations strongly suggest a strategic intent to preserve core elements of the nuclear program, reinforcing the interpretation that Iran remains committed to retaining latent nuclear capabilities despite sustained external pressure.

Assassinations and the Human Cost of Sabotage

The broader campaign to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program has also included targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade — including individuals involved in both military and civilian applications. While the identities and affiliations of some figures remain debated, others were reportedly engaged in work related to radioisotopes, radiopharmaceuticals, or diagnostic technologies such as PET scanners and gamma cameras. The dual-use nature of nuclear research in Iran — where civil and strategic aims often overlap — has made attribution complex and politicized. These killings, widely attributed to Israeli intelligence services, have deepened Iranian perceptions of external hostility and martyrdom, fueling domestic narratives of scientific resistance and national dignity.

The Illusion of "Obliteration"

The stark divergence between political rhetoric and classified assessments underscores a critical disconnect between the projection of strategic success and operational reality. While Trump and Netanyahu publicly claimed “complete obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear program, intelligence reports revealed that key assets — including fissile material, technical infrastructure, and scientific personnel — remained intact or were recoverable. The strikes appear to have functioned more as political theater and short-term deterrence than a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

This gap between appearance and substance highlights a recurring pattern: military actions that prioritize symbolic messaging over strategic resolution. As long as the core incentives and capacities behind Iran’s nuclear program remain unaddressed, the risk of renewed conflict persists — potentially drawing both nations, and their allies, into a cycle of strikes and countermeasures without a sustainable diplomatic exit.

 The implications of Iran’s ability to anticipate and withstand the June 2025 strikes go beyond short-term damage control. They reflect a long-term doctrine of strategic resilience—an acknowledgment that the nuclear program cannot be defended conventionally, but must instead be designed for survivability. This adaptive posture, which includes dispersal, concealment, and institutional redundancy, signals that Iran is unlikely to abandon its nuclear ambitions under pressure, nor can those ambitions be “eliminated” through conventional military means. In effect, the nuclear file has entered a protracted cat-and-mouse phase—one defined not by final resolutions, but by periodic confrontations and strategic recalibrations that leave the core dispute unresolved.

International Reactions and Diplomatic Landscape

The global response to the June 2025 escalation between Iran and Israel was fragmented and often contradictory, reflecting a shifting international order and the erosion of consensus on collective security norms. Strategic self-interest, more than shared principles, largely shaped national reactions, making coordinated diplomacy difficult and highlighting the limitations of current multilateral mechanisms.

United Nations (UN)

UN Political Chief Rosemary DiCarlo welcomed the ceasefire as a fragile but essential opportunity to resume dialogue on Iran’s nuclear program, emphasizing the continued importance of diplomacy, verification, and adherence to international law. Secretary-General António Guterres urged both sides to end hostilities, stating that “the people of the two countries have already suffered too much.” The UN Human Rights Office condemned Israel’s bombing of Iran’s Evin prison, calling it a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law and highlighting the risks to civilian infrastructure.

European Union (EU) and France

EU Ambassador Stavros Lambrinidis called for a renewed diplomatic push and reaffirmed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) central role in monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities. France urged Iran to return to full IAEA cooperation and engage in negotiations toward a “robust, verifiable, and lasting diplomatic solution,” while signaling the potential use of “snapback” sanctions if progress stalled. During the NATO summit, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz jointly declared that “now is the time for diplomacy,” underscoring a unified European desire to prevent further escalation.

China

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi condemned the military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and expressed support for Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. China, as Iran’s largest trading partner and key oil customer, emphasized regional stability and the uninterrupted flow of energy. President Trump publicly claimed that the ceasefire would allow China to continue purchasing Iranian oil, revealing Washington’s suspicion of Beijing’s economic motives in maintaining the status quo.

Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow supported a peaceful resolution but declined to mediate, arguing that there was “no evidence” Iran had been preparing an attack prior to the Israeli strikes. Analysts noted that Russia’s muted role reflected its reduced influence in the Middle East due to its ongoing war in Ukraine. Nonetheless, rising oil prices and strategic distraction in the region were seen as quietly advantageous to Moscow, potentially bolstering its heavily sanctioned economy.

Regional Actors

Reactions among Middle Eastern states varied widely:

• Pakistan welcomed the ceasefire and called for strict adherence to the UN Charter.
• Egypt reiterated its commitment to regional sovereignty and pledged to assist in de-escalation efforts.
• Qatar, while condemning Iranian drone strikes on a U.S. military facility within its borders, played a mediating role in ceasefire negotiations.
• Turkey emphasized that the Palestinian issue remained “at the root of many problems in the Middle East” and welcomed the cessation of hostilities.
• Saudi Arabia condemned Israel’s strikes as violations of international law and denied the use of its airspace for military operations, signaling a position of cautious neutrality.

Canada

Canada expressed deep concern over the escalation and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to diplomacy. The Canadian government reaffirmed its support for the IAEA and emphasized the need to protect civilian populations in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. While refraining from endorsing either side, Canadian officials underscored the importance of multilateral cooperation, international law, and a durable diplomatic framework for preventing further conflict.

United States

The United States played a pivotal role in brokering the ceasefire. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff conducted backchannel communications with Iranian intermediaries aimed at reopening diplomatic channels. Acting U.S. Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea criticized Iran’s expanded enrichment activities as violations of international agreements and urged Tehran to "seize this opportunity for peace and prosperity." President Trump’s direct communications with Prime Minister Netanyahu helped finalize the ceasefire, although he expressed frustration with both sides for early violations. Trump insisted the U.S. airstrikes had achieved their objective of disrupting Iran’s capacity to weaponize enriched uranium and demonstrated American resolve.

From Reaction to Responsibility

While most international reactions were shaped by strategic calculations, the crisis also revived deeper questions about the guiding principles of the global order. For some diplomats and observers, the June 2025 escalation underscored the urgency of returning to the core ideals of the United Nations Charter: peace through diplomacy, security through multilateral cooperation, and conflict resolution grounded in international law. Rather than viewing this conflict solely through the lens of national interest, the moment offers an opportunity to reaffirm a shared commitment to justice, truth, and a rules-based international system. Whether the world’s powers will seize that opportunity—or allow this episode to become yet another cycle in a worsening regional conflict—remains uncertain.

Fractured Diplomacy and Strategic Opportunism

The fragmented international reaction to the June 2025 escalation also underscored a broader erosion of collective diplomacy. The lack of a unified response from major powers revealed the weakening of the post-Cold War consensus on multilateral conflict resolution. Traditional mechanisms—such as coordinated action through the UN Security Council or robust regional diplomacy—proved largely ineffective. In their place, a patchwork of state-level reactions emerged: strategic neutrality from countries like Saudi Arabia, humanitarian concerns from Canada, and restrained appeals for de-escalation from the European Union. This diplomatic incoherence significantly limited the global community’s ability to exert cohesive pressure for a durable resolution, thereby enabling the underlying drivers of the conflict to persist unchecked.

In parallel, the response of certain major powers reflected a pattern of geopolitical opportunism rather than principled conflict mediation. While both Russia and China publicly endorsed de-escalation, their broader strategic postures suggested calibrated restraint. Russia, facing international isolation over its war in Ukraine, stood to benefit from rising oil prices and the diversion of U.S. strategic attention. China, heavily reliant on uninterrupted oil imports and maritime stability, remained focused on preserving trade continuity rather than assuming a mediating role. Analysts described their positions not as solidarity with any party, but as “cold preservation” of strategic advantage. In effect, both states appeared disinclined to pursue an outcome that might jeopardize their broader regional interests.

This absence of unified diplomatic pressure—combined with selective restraint and calculated self-interest—created a permissive environment for prolonged instability. As a result, while the ceasefire brought temporary relief, it did not resolve the core issues at stake, nor did it create meaningful conditions for a sustainable peace.

Economic and Humanitarian Impacts

The June 2025 Iran-Israel conflict generated immediate and wide-ranging economic and humanitarian consequences, highlighting the far-reaching costs of regional militarization and prolonged instability.

Economic Impacts

The most immediate global economic consequence was a sharp surge in oil prices following Israel’s initial airstrikes. Markets reacted to increased geopolitical risk in the Persian Gulf, particularly concerns over potential Iranian retaliation targeting regional energy infrastructure or maritime traffic. The Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly 20% of global oil supply transits—was identified as a potential chokepoint whose disruption could trigger a global energy crisis and recessionary shockwaves. Although Iran refrained from such escalatory measures, the threat alone significantly rattled markets and prompted precautionary price hikes across energy and shipping sectors.

Commercial confidence was also undermined in key shipping corridors, including the Eastern Mediterranean and Gulf of Oman, with insurers raising premiums on vessels transiting high-risk zones. Rising fuel costs and logistical uncertainties had cascading effects on global supply chains, compounding inflationary pressures in energy-importing economies.

Both Iran and Israel experienced domestic economic blowback. Iran’s economy suffered intensified currency devaluation, market disruptions, and renewed sanctions enforcement, exacerbating long-standing inflation and public discontent—particularly among the urban middle class. Internet restrictions imposed during the conflict further hampered commerce and daily life. In Israel, the conflict strained key sectors such as tourism, transportation, and high-tech exports, as investor confidence was shaken by security instability. Nonetheless, the announcement of the US-brokered ceasefire on June 24 helped stabilize global oil markets, providing temporary relief from speculative volatility.

Humanitarian Impacts

The human toll of the conflict was substantial and multifaceted. In Israel, Iranian missile and drone attacks caused civilian casualties, including at least three fatalities and several injuries in a major barrage on June 23. In Iran, Israeli strikes reportedly resulted in the deaths of approximately 610 people over twelve days, including emergency responders and multiple casualties at Evin prison—an attack condemned by the UN Human Rights Office as a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law. The presence of family members, civilian staff, and unarmed inmates at the facility amplified international concern.

Beyond immediate fatalities, the conflict inflicted broader humanitarian damage. Internet shutdowns across Iran severely disrupted civilian access to communication, information, and remote work. In neighboring countries, particularly Lebanon and Syria, the risk of escalation raised fears of renewed refugee flows, adding pressure to already overburdened humanitarian infrastructures. Qatar and the UAE raised alarms about potential refugee inflows in the event of a regional spillover.

Environmental risks added a further layer of long-term humanitarian concern. The targeting of nuclear and industrial facilities posed dangers of radioactive exposure and toxic contamination. Reports also highlighted the risk of oil refinery fires and chemical spills, particularly from the use of fluorinated firefighting foams ("forever chemicals") at impacted military sites. Environmental damage to water and sanitation systems, oil pollution in the Persian Gulf, and increased emissions from conflict activity are expected to have lasting consequences for public health and regional ecological stability.

The Broader Ripple Effect of Conflict

The economic and humanitarian repercussions of the conflict transcend its immediate geography. Disruptions to oil flows, inflationary shocks, and elevated shipping risk affect both developed and developing economies. Likewise, the environmental degradation and long-term health risks associated with warfare-induced pollution are not confined to national borders. These global spillover effects illustrate that the true cost of this conflict—like many in the modern era—is not borne solely by the belligerents but is distributed across the international system.

In this context, the June 2025 conflict becomes not only a regional security crisis but a global challenge, exposing the limitations of fragmented diplomatic engagement and the urgent need for stronger multilateral cooperation rooted in the foundational ideals of the United Nations: collective security, environmental stewardship, and the protection of human dignity.

Civilian Suffering and the Ethics of Modern Warfare

A recurring and deeply troubling theme of the conflict was the predictability—and perhaps inevitability—of civilian harm. Strikes on densely populated areas, critical infrastructure, and facilities such as Evin prison suggest that civilian suffering, while not necessarily intentional, was treated as an acceptable collateral consequence of military objectives. The killing of ambulance workers, the disruption of emergency services, and the impact on imprisoned and displaced civilians raise acute questions about proportionality, discrimination, and accountability in warfare.

Such patterns point to a broader strategic reality: modern high-intensity conflicts are increasingly waged in ways that expose civilian populations to disproportionate harm. This not only violates core principles of international humanitarian law but also perpetuates grievances and erodes the moral legitimacy of military actors. The cycle of violence thus becomes self-reinforcing, as civilian loss fuels anger, resistance, and future instability

Prospects for Stability: "Forever War" vs. Long-Term Peace

The June 2025 ceasefire, while momentarily halting active hostilities, did little to resolve the structural drivers of the Iran-Israel conflict. Rather than paving a path toward durable peace, it exposed the entrenched dynamics and mutual distrust that continue to fuel the risk of protracted confrontation—a state increasingly characterized by some analysts as a "forever war."

Factors Sustaining a "Forever War"

The fragility of the ceasefire was apparent from the outset. Multiple allegations of violations were exchanged within days, eroding whatever initial trust had been established. Both American and Israeli officials acknowledged that the truce was “not a peace deal, but an effort to quiet the situation long enough to get Israel and Iran to the negotiating table.” In essence, it was tactical de-escalation, not strategic resolution.

In Iran, internal fragmentation, elite factionalism, and severe economic duress continue to limit the regime’s capacity to engage in meaningful compromise. Without near-term sanctions relief or guarantees of sovereignty, Tehran’s incentive structure tilts toward resistance rather than accommodation. Analysts have warned that absent economic stabilization, Iran may once again “lash out” to break diplomatic deadlock or reassert deterrence.

Israel, meanwhile, faces its own internal pressures. Popular anger over Iranian missile strikes on civilian areas and calls to “finish the mission” reflect a political environment where moderation may be perceived as weakness. Prime Minister Netanyahu must balance these hawkish sentiments with the imperative of preserving U.S. support, particularly as domestic and congressional criticism of Israeli operations has grown more vocal.

Strategic ambiguity also clouds the prospects for resolution. The “end game” remains ill-defined: was the objective to delay, dismantle, or regime-change Iran’s nuclear program? The apparent “daylight” between U.S. and Israeli goals—particularly regarding long-term engagement versus maximalist disruption—adds to the uncertainty. Israel’s desire to retain access to Iranian airspace further conflicts with Tehran’s objective of reversing recent military and political losses.

Compounding these difficulties is the existential framing of the conflict on both sides. Israel views a nuclear Iran as a non-negotiable red line, while Iran interprets Israeli airstrikes—particularly those targeting regime assets—as existential threats to its sovereignty. This mutual existentialism narrows the scope for compromise and increases the appeal of maximalist strategies.

There is also a risk that the conflict will reinforce Iran’s determination to pursue nuclear weapons. Several reports suggest that the June strikes may have “hardened” Tehran’s resolve, especially given the perceived failures of international diplomacy and the heavy human toll. The collapse of deterrence norms, regional proliferation concerns, and diminished prospects for a renewed nuclear agreement all reinforce this dangerous trajectory.

President Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is widely viewed as having empowered Iranian hardliners, discredited moderates, and delegitimized future engagement. In this context, diplomacy is not only seen as futile but as strategically risky. Moreover, Iran’s developing security relationship with Russia—including joint training, drone exports, and shared asymmetric tactics—offers Tehran an alternative framework for resisting Western pressure, albeit one that deepens regional fragmentation.

Despite suffering significant losses—including degraded proxy capabilities, airspace incursions, and domestic unrest—Iran has remained rhetorically and strategically defiant. This posture reflects the centrality of the nuclear program to national identity and regime legitimacy. Abandoning enrichment under pressure would, from Tehran’s perspective, undermine decades of investment and signal submission to foreign coercion.

Pathways to Long-Term Peace

Nonetheless, a number of conditions exist—however tenuous—that could be harnessed to move toward sustainable de-escalation. The ceasefire, while imperfect, created a temporary diplomatic opening. Both Iran and Israel had tactical incentives to frame the cessation of hostilities as a domestic "win," even if the strategic picture remained unsettled.

Iran's current strategic constraints—including proxy management challenges, defensive system adjustments, and economic pressures—may prompt a recalculation of diplomatic options. However,  Iran's historical capacity to transform external pressure into internal cohesion—as seen during the Iran-Iraq War—indicates that current constraints could paradoxically strengthen Tehran's negotiating position.

For Netanyahu, continued escalation risks straining U.S. goodwill and widening fissures with key European allies. A perceived Israeli overreach could erode international legitimacy and invite diplomatic isolation. The  Trump administration—while supportive of Israeli self-defense—has signaled ambivalence about open-ended escalation and appears increasingly focused on containing regional spillover.

U.S. domestic politics also act as a moderating force. A polarized electorate, increasingly skeptical of military engagements abroad, constrains Washington’s room for maneuver. This shift in sentiment could serve as an external brake on escalation and heighten pressure for diplomatic alternatives. As a result, both Israel and Iran may find greater strategic value in negotiation—if only to avoid further uncertainty and maintain domestic stability.

Several regional actors—particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Turkey—have demonstrated growing interest in facilitating dialogue. Having narrowly avoided a broader regional war, these states now have an intensified interest in regional de-escalation, energy market stability, and protection of their geopolitical standing. While none possess the clout to impose a solution, their collective involvement could reduce miscalculation, provide indirect communication channels, and support confidence-building measures.

Strategic recommendations from diplomats and policy institutes have increasingly called for reframing the nuclear issue. Instead of emphasizing enrichment thresholds alone, a more viable pathway may lie in ensuring Iran does not weaponize its nuclear program—potentially allowing limited civilian capabilities under strict international verification. This approach would aim to satisfy Iran’s need for scientific prestige and sovereign dignity while assuring Israel and the international community that proliferation risks are contained. Although politically sensitive, such a formulation offers a possible entry point for creative diplomacy.

Ultimately, while the conditions for lasting peace remain precarious, the interplay of internal fatigue, external pressure, and mutual strategic overextension presents a narrow but real opportunity for recalibrating the conflict. Seizing it will require not only pragmatic statecraft but a willingness—on all sides—to privilege long-term stability over short-term symbolism.

The Fragility of “Temporary Calm”

The current pause in hostilities is deeply fragile. Most analysts agree that, absent substantial political change, the underlying conditions fueling the conflict remain unaddressed. Immediate ceasefire violations, the absence of trust, and competing narratives of victory have eroded momentum toward a broader peace. Without clear and enforceable mechanisms for monitoring, verification, and mutual guarantees, the region is likely to relapse into conflict.

Both sides are engaged in “positioning” rather than reconciliation, and without sustained third-party mediation, the diplomatic process risks stalling entirely. The ceasefire, while necessary to prevent further immediate escalation, does not constitute a durable solution.

 The Resilience Paradox: How Strategic Pressure Reinforces Iranian Resolve 

Iran's response to current strategic pressures reveals a complex dynamic that transcends simple calculations of military capability. While facing genuine challenges—including infrastructure damage, proxy network disruption, and economic constraints—Iran's strategic posture has paradoxically hardened rather than moderated. This apparent contradiction reflects both the deep-seated Persian cultural tradition of resistance to foreign pressure and Iran's sophisticated understanding of asymmetric deterrence.

Iran's historical experience demonstrates a pattern of transforming external adversity into internal resolve and strategic innovation. From the constitutional revolution of 1906 through the Iran-Iraq War, Persian culture has consistently valorized resistance against overwhelming odds as a source of national identity and legitimacy. This cultural foundation, combined with Iran's geopolitical acumen, enables Tehran to reframe current pressures not as evidence of weakness but as validation of its strategic importance and justification for enhanced deterrent capabilities.

Rather than seeking accommodation, Iran appears to be pursuing strategic recalibration—intensifying missile development, rebuilding proxy relationships, and maintaining nuclear ambiguity as elements of a comprehensive deterrent posture. This approach reflects Iran's assessment that temporary tactical setbacks pale beside the long-term imperative of establishing credible deterrence against superior conventional forces.

This dynamic illuminates the inherent limitations of pressure-based strategies in addressing complex security dilemmas. Without engaging the underlying sources of Iranian strategic behavior—including legitimate security concerns, regional ambitions, and deeply rooted cultural narratives of resistance—purely coercive approaches may inadvertently strengthen the very resolve they seek to undermine, perpetuating cycles of escalation rather than achieving sustainable resolution.

III. Integrating Diverse Expert Perspectives for Comprehensive Analysis

The Iran-Israel conflict, particularly the June 2025 escalation, has elicited varied interpretations from leading experts, each offering distinct analytical frameworks for understanding the complex dynamics at play.

Professor John Mearsheimer's Structural Realist Analysis

Professor John Mearsheimer, a prominent proponent of offensive realism, provides a structural critique of the conflict and US foreign policy in the Middle East. His analysis centers on the principle that great powers inherently seek to maximize security through regional dominance. From this perspective, Israel's preemptive military actions, including the June 13 strikes, represent a logical extension of this security imperative, aimed at degrading adversarial capabilities to maintain regional supremacy.

Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that the United States provides disproportionate diplomatic, military, and financial support to Israel, contending that the costs to American national interests outweigh the strategic benefits. They view Israel not as an asset in counterterrorism efforts but as a strategic liability that paradoxically increases security threats to the United States. Their analysis suggests that Israeli actions in occupied territories fuel regional grievances, provide justification for violent groups, and complicate US diplomatic efforts, including through American vetoes of UN resolutions critical of Israel.

The Legal Asymmetry Argument

Central to Mearsheimer's critique is what he terms the "legal asymmetry" in international relations. He highlights that international rules appear to apply selectively: Iran, as an NPT signatory, faces surveillance, sanctions, and military strikes, while Israel, a non-signatory with an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, operates with relative impunity. Mearsheimer warns that continued US endorsement of Israeli preemption while demanding Iranian compliance will accelerate the breakdown of the international non-proliferation regime. This perceived double standard signals to other states that "strength becomes the only insurance policy" and "ambiguity brings protection," potentially catalyzing nuclear proliferation as nations conclude that treaty adherence makes them vulnerable while rejection grants protection.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs on Economic Warfare and Regional Destabilization

Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs offers a sharp critique of US-Israeli policy coordination, arguing that Washington's alignment with Israel's security priorities has contributed significantly to regional instability. Sachs specifically cites covert operations, such as the CIA's Timber Sycamore program, as catalysts for conflicts like the Syrian civil war, suggesting that US intervention actively destabilizes the region rather than promoting stability.

Sachs emphasizes the profound impact of US sanctions on Iran's economy, noting that restrictions have dramatically reduced Iran's oil revenues, leading to severe import limitations and scarcity of essential goods. This economic pressure has generated substantial humanitarian consequences, including increased poverty and inequality among the Iranian population. However, Sachs's analysis reveals a paradoxical outcome: despite these severe impacts, Iran's economy has progressively developed resistance to sanctions damage, suggesting adaptation and resilience rather than collapse.

The Resilience Paradox

The sustained economic pressure appears to have fostered what Sachs describes as a "siege mentality" while driving internal adjustments that enable regime endurance. This resilience, combined with the regime's documented use of external conflict to divert attention from domestic challenges, suggests that sanctions may inadvertently contribute to prolonged conflict dynamics by strengthening internal control mechanisms and reducing incentives for compromise on core strategic issues.

Scott Ritter's Military Assessment

Former US Marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter provides a critical evaluation of recent military actions and their strategic implications. Ritter sharply criticized recent US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, describing them as a "symbolic act" and "grand act of theater". He argues these strikes were primarily designed as face-saving measures rather than achieving tangible strategic objectives.

Ritter contends that targeted sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan had been previously struck and were largely devoid of sensitive nuclear equipment, directly challenging official claims of strategic success. His assessment suggests that Iran had strategically relocated critical assets, including enriched uranium and centrifuges, prior to the strikes, indicating sophisticated anticipation and long-term planning.

The Theater of Military Action

Ritter's characterization of recent strikes as "theater" highlights a significant disconnect between political narratives of military success and actual strategic impact. Drawing on his Persian Gulf War experience, he warns against accepting initial battle damage assessments at face value, emphasizing that the "fog of war" often obscures actual results and that many targeted installations may be decoys. This analysis suggests that military actions designed primarily for political consumption rather than strategic effect create cycles of perceived victories and defeats without addressing underlying security dilemmas.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor's Strategic Warning

Colonel Douglas Macgregor offers a provocative critique of US military strategy, characterizing American policy as potentially counterproductive to long-term stability. He warns against escalatory measures, particularly the potential use of low-yield nuclear weapons, which he deems a dangerous miscalculation that should be avoided categorically.

Macgregor attributes strategic failures to what he terms "arrogance and self-delusion" in US foreign policy circles, predicting that expanded military involvement would prompt China and Russia to increase support for Iran, thereby creating what he describes as a "formidable challenge" to US interests. His analysis suggests that current approaches risk triggering a prolonged conflict with severe consequences, including economic disruption, market instability, and damaged diplomatic credibility.

The Self-Defeating Cycle

Macgregor's assessment implies that unchecked interventionism creates a self-reinforcing cycle: US actions prompt great power competitors to strengthen adversaries, which in turn intensifies conflicts the US seeks to resolve. This dynamic suggests that current strategic approaches may be fundamentally counterproductive, perpetuating instability while undermining long-term American interests.

John Kerry's Diplomatic Perspective

As a key architect of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), John Kerry consistently defended the agreement as a "technically sound, stringent, and innovative deal" designed to enhance regional and global security. Kerry highlighted the agreement's success in halting Iranian nuclear activities and extending the nuclear "breakout time" from 2-3 months to over a year, while reducing Iran's centrifuge capacity by two-thirds for a decade.

However, critics argued that the original JCPOA contained fundamental flaws, including provisions that would eventually permit unlimited Iranian uranium enrichment after 2030 and inadequate restrictions on ballistic missile development and terrorism sponsorship. A significant point of contention involved allegations that the agreement allowed Iranian military installations to remain off-limits to international inspectors.

The Verification Challenge

Kerry has since acknowledged the need for a more comprehensive agreement, emphasizing requirements for prohibiting uranium enrichment above civilian thresholds, eliminating hardened nuclear facilities, implementing strict fissile material caps, ensuring comprehensive inspections, and addressing ballistic missile programs and terrorism sponsorship. He advocates for codifying any future agreement as a legally binding treaty to address Iranian concerns about potential reversal by subsequent administrations.

The Persistent Trust Deficit

Despite Kerry's defense of the JCPOA's verification mechanisms, ongoing proliferation concerns highlight the persistent challenge of establishing comprehensive transparency and trust. The contradiction between claims of verifiability and critiques regarding incomplete access suggests that future diplomatic solutions must address fundamental issues of transparency and comprehensive monitoring to achieve lasting effectiveness.

 

Analytical Synthesis

These diverse expert perspectives reveal several critical themes:

Strategic Consistency vs. Tactical Flexibility: Mearsheimer's emphasis on legal asymmetry and Ritter's critique of theatrical military actions both highlight the importance of strategic coherence over tactical maneuvering.

Economic Pressure and Regime Adaptation: Sachs's analysis of sanctions-induced resilience suggests that economic coercion may produce unintended consequences, strengthening rather than weakening targeted regimes.

Military Action and Political Theater: Both Ritter and Macgregor warn that military actions designed primarily for domestic political consumption may undermine rather than advance strategic objectives.

Diplomatic Frameworks and Trust: Kerry's experience with the JCPOA illustrates both the potential and limitations of diplomatic solutions in addressing complex security dilemmas.

These perspectives collectively suggest that addressing the Iran-Israel conflict requires moving beyond immediate tactical responses toward comprehensive strategies that account for regional dynamics, great power competition, and the complex interplay between military pressure, economic coercion, and diplomatic engagement.

IV. Synthesizing Perspectives: Towards a More Balanced Understanding

The diverse perspectives of Mearsheimer, Sachs, Ritter, Macgregor, and Kerry, while often contradictory in their conclusions, collectively paint a more balanced and nuanced picture of the Iran-Israel conflict.

Common Themes

Several overarching themes emerge from the expert analyses. Firstly, there is a broad consensus that Iran's nuclear program remains a central driver of the conflict and a key factor shaping regional dynamics. While experts differ on the most effective or ethical ways to address this program, its pivotal role is universally acknowledged. Secondly, the role of the United States is consistently identified as pivotal, often decisive, yet frequently problematic. Across the spectrum, US policies are criticized as inconsistent, self-serving, or ultimately counterproductive to long-term stability in the Middle East. Thirdly, the fragility of any peace or ceasefire, particularly the June 2025 truce, is a recurring observation. The deep-seated factors pushing for continued conflict—such as mutual existential threats, internal domestic pressures, and deeply ingrained ideological commitments—are widely recognized as significant impediments to lasting peace. Finally, a common thread is the profound influence of domestic politics on foreign policy. The analyses consistently demonstrate how internal political and economic pressures within both Iran and Israel significantly shape their external actions and strategic decisions, often overriding purely rational foreign policy calculations.

Points of Divergence/Contradiction

Despite these commonalities, significant divergences exist. A stark contradiction is evident in the assessment of the effectiveness of military strikes. Political rhetoric from President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed "complete obliteration" of Iran's nuclear program, yet assessments from US intelligence and Scott Ritter described the strikes as having only a "few months" setback effect and being largely "theater." The nature of US involvement also elicits differing views: John Kerry's perspective emphasizes diplomacy as the primary solution and highlights the JCPOA's achievements, while Jeffrey Sachs and COL. Douglas Macgregor offer a more critical view, portraying the US role as interventionist, destabilizing, or even that of a "rogue state." The viability of diplomacy is another point of contention; Kerry's continued advocacy for a new, legally binding nuclear treaty stands in contrast to Mearsheimer's argument that the inconsistent application of international law undermines the utility of such treaties. Furthermore, some analysts suggest that "diplomacy is dead for the foreseeable future." Lastly, official US and Israeli statements consistently portray Iran as actively pursuing an operational nuclear weapon, while Iran maintains its program is for peaceful purposes. Expert analyses add layers to this, suggesting Iran's resolve may harden in response to attacks, and its pre-strike preparations indicate a long-term commitment to its capabilities, irrespective of official claims.

Areas of Consensus

Despite the divergences, there is an implicit or explicit consensus on several fundamental points. The conflict is multi-faceted, involving complex strategic, political, economic, and profound humanitarian dimensions that cannot be understood in isolation. The interconnectedness of regional and global systems means that the conflict's impacts extend far beyond the immediate belligerents, affecting global energy markets, trade routes, and humanitarian conditions. Finally, there is a shared understanding of the inherent risks of escalation, the potential for a "forever war" dynamic, and the severe consequences for all involved, directly or indirectly.

V. Conclusions

The June 2025 escalation in the Iran-Israel conflict underscores a deeply entrenched and multi-dimensional geopolitical challenge. The analysis reveals that the conflict is driven by a complex interplay of perceived existential threats, where each side's security actions are viewed as aggression by the other, thus perpetuating a cycle of escalation. This dynamic is further fueled by domestic political imperatives in both nations, where leaders may leverage external confrontation to consolidate internal support or reframe their legacies, often at the expense of genuine de-escalation.

The effectiveness of military solutions, particularly in addressing Iran's nuclear program, appears limited. Despite claims of "obliteration," intelligence assessments suggest only temporary setbacks, with Iran demonstrating strategic foresight in protecting its assets. This indicates that military force alone is unlikely to achieve a definitive resolution to the nuclear question, leaving the core issue unresolved and setting the stage for future confrontations.

The international diplomatic landscape is characterized by fragmentation and opportunistic self-interest among major powers. The erosion of collective diplomatic consensus diminishes the capacity for unified external pressure, allowing the conflict to fester. While some nations call for de-escalation, the strategic benefits reaped by others from the chaos inadvertently contribute to prolonged instability.

The economic and humanitarian costs are extensive and far-reaching, impacting global energy markets, international trade, and civilian populations in devastating ways. Civilian suffering, while not always a direct objective, emerges as a consistent and predictable byproduct of the military strategies employed, contributing to long-term grievances that can fuel continued conflict.

Ultimately, the ceasefire of June 2025 represents a temporary calm rather than a definitive peace. The underlying drivers of conflict—mutual existential fears, internal political pressures, and a lack of comprehensive, verifiable diplomatic solutions—remain potently active. The paradox of Iran's conventional military challenges coexisting with a hardened resolve to pursue strategic capabilities suggests that military setbacks may not translate into a willingness to concede core objectives. Without a fundamental re-evaluation of strategic approaches by all parties and a renewed commitment to consistent international law and comprehensive diplomacy, the region remains poised for continued instability, risking a prolonged state of conflict with profound global implications.