The 12-day Iran-Israel war

Express Tribune

3 days ago

Listen to article
The 12-day war between Iran and Israel must have convinced the Iranian regime that only in the possession of a nuclear bomb lies the security and deterrence of their country. Had it possessed a bomb it is most unlikely that Israel would have launched an attack on it on the 13th of June 2025. In an interview with Karan Thapar, the internationally renowned award winning columnist Gideon Levy stated that in case Iran possessed a bomb just as in the case of North Korea and Pakistan it would've provided a guarantee and deterrence against a nuclear attack by an adversary.
Although the ceasefire between Iran and Israel may last for a short while, a permanent peace is inconceivable in the absence of a lasting solution to the Palestinian issue. Resolution of the Gaza, Lebanon and Western Bank problems may bring some respite yet complete peace in the middle east will be fraught unless a two-state solution is not implemented.
The killing of 100 innocent Gazans every day by the Israelis cannot be called anything like self-defence or security but clear genocide.
The best one can say about the 12-day war is that it was short and did not deteriorate into a war of attrition like the brutal war in Gaza. This raises the question whether the war was necessary.
The staying power of Iran would've been far greater than that of Israel in a protracted standoff considering that Iran withstood a war for eight years with Iraq. In the 12-day war, Israel and its population had begun to feel the brunt and dismay. The US must've realised that Israel couldn't withstand a long war due to economic pressure and the great drain on its arms and ammunition.
The ceasefire is likely to last and hold not because of the goodwill of any party but because it is in the interest of the two sides. The far more important question that arises is whether the war was necessary at all. After the ceasefire the status quo ante is most likely to revive with the same nuclear deal as existed between Obama and Iran. Both the sides suffered militarily, Iran more than Israel, yet the question arises is: for what outcome was the war fought? The ceasefire is likely to hold on since both sides were eager to end the war.
After the ceasefire Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel had achieved two of its goals: undoing the nuclear capability and removing the Iranian ICBM threat.
A US Intelligence Agency report leaked by CNN just one day after the ceasefire informed that the Iranian nuclear capability had only been set back by a few months and not completely obliterated.
There were also reports that some nuclear facilities and materials had been removed from the three sites – Ferdow, Natanz and Isfahan – and the bunker busters GBU-57A, carried by US B2 bombers, could not completely exterminate nuclear facilities nor were any radioactive signs traceable over the sites.
Some scholars of the middle east argue that if Iran does obtain a nuclear bomb, it may add to stability in the region in the sense that everyone will be deterred from using the bomb due to the horrible consequences of such a conflagration which will be suicidal for all sides. Possession of a nuclear bomb by Iran may lead it to change its mind from extermination of Israel and diversion of its resources towards socio-economic development.
Prof John Miershiemer has averred that the long-term policy and goal of Israel, with the support of the US, is to break up and fracture the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. That is why Israel is hell bent on depriving Iran from becoming a nuclear power and thus depriving it of its nuclear monopoly. For similar reasons Iran wants to establish a Kurdish state so that Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are fragmented. The US and Israel also hold countries like Egypt and Jordan by the gullet so that they are dependent upon America for their economies. Any threat to Israel will lead to economic strangulation of these countries.
The Israel-US goal of regime change in Iran has proved a failure. Regime change without boots on the ground and merely through air power is impossible as was seen in Iraq. In fact, the Iranian regime has gained in strength and popularity due to rallying of the population around the flag.
Even if a regime change was possible the consequences would be disastrous as is clear from the examples of Syria and Iraq which led to a power vacuum and acute social dissensions within the country and conditions of civil war.
If Iran had a nuclear bomb, it is unlikely that it would use it as at the end of it all, Iran is not a suicidal country and its leadership is no less rational than that of the US and Israel despite some of the illegitimate policies it pursues like repression of opposition and attitude towards women freedoms.
Avi Shlaim, the leading Israeli historian, states that: 1) Iran has never attacked any of its neighbours, while Israel has; 2) Iran doesn't possess a nuclear bomb and Israel does; 3) Iran is a signatory of the NYPT whereas Israel is not; and 4) Iran allows IAEA inspections and Israel doesn't.
Israel is treated differently from other countries in so many ways which are morally illegitimate. Some people justify this special treatment of Israel on account of the Holocaust but the latter provides no justification for any country to treat other nation as in the holocaust.
Trump and Israel spoke of eliminating Ayatullah Khamenei and hunting nuclear scientists which can only be regarded as morally and legally repugnant. If there was a justification for assassinating Khamenei, what prevents the same treatment not being meted out to Natanyahu not the least for the vicious and amoral genocide in Gaza.