&w=3840&q=100)
Israel-Iran ‘12-days war': How West Asia is on a strategic reset
The future geopolitical landscape of West Asia is likely to be multipolar, prompting both global powers and regional actors to recalibrate their strategies accordingly read more
West Asia has witnessed over a dozen major conflicts since World War II due to the contentious nature of its security dynamics, attributed largely to the interplay of external, regional and domestic factors. The recent skirmish between Israel and Iran amply vindicated the above intricacies.
The sudden eruption of recent hostilities leading to a full-scale war was the result of simmering belligerence between Tel Aviv and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran's strategy to prosecute a proxy war without getting entangled in a conventional conflict with Israel was finally challenged.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation 'Rising Lion' against Iran in a preemptive effort to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear capabilities and avert an 'existential threat'. In the massive aerial strike, Israeli fighter jets pounded around 100 sites across Iran, primary targets being nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, besides key military installations.
Iran was caught by surprise, and as per the experts estimate, lost almost 15 per cent of its missile arsenal and crucial air defence systems. Several Iranian top military commanders were also killed. Iran's retaliation came a day later by way of large-scale drones and ballistic missile strikes against Israel.
The initial strikes were followed by intense exchanges of missile barrages by both sides. Having achieved complete air domination, Israel was able to inflict colossal damage on Iran's war-fighting machinery. On the other hand, Iran's retaliation was confined to waves of missile strikes, as its air force, being weak, was missing in action. This notwithstanding, Iran's hypersonic missiles were able to penetrate the Israeli air defence and cause considerable damage to the infrastructure.
Given the lack of strategic depth and doctrine of fighting swift, short wars, the war of attrition was proving unaffordable for Israel, costing hundreds of millions of dollars a day. Iran, on the other hand, was well poised to sustain a longer conflict, as around two-thirds of its missile arsenal (estimated to be around 3,000) was still intact after a week of fighting.
Ten days into the conflict, there was a major escalation when the US joined Israel in the fight against Iran by launching Operation 'Mid Night Hammer' in the wee hours of June 22, 2025. The aerial strikes were undertaken by a package of seven B2 bombers, wherein Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan were struck with GBU-57 deep penetrating, bunker buster bombs. President Donald Trump declared that all three nuclear sites had been completely obliterated. Iran vowed to avenge the American aggression, which it did the following day in the form of a symbolic missile strike on the US air base at Al Udeid in Qatar, but there was no damage or casualties.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On June 23, Trump, with mediation from Qatar, announced a phased ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring that the '12-Day War' was over. There were few truce violations before Israel and Iran accepted the ceasefire, which came into effect on June 24 and has held on so far. The stage appears to be now set for the next phase – diplomatic duels at the negotiation table, as talks are expected to resume in the near future.
The wars are fought to be won, with precise politico-military aims. In this case too, both Iran and Israel claimed to be winners, having attained their respective objectives. Iran declared national victory over the Jewish regime and America. Concurrently, the Israeli foreign ministry also strongly claimed that Israel has not only achieved all objectives in the war but also killed hundreds of terrorists in Iran. Tel Aviv also announced that the outcome of the war has placed Israel in the ranks of the world's leading powers.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Well, Israel did succeed in degrading Iran's nuclear capability significantly, albeit with American assistance. Israel did demonstrate its ability to dominate the airspace and operate deep inside Iranian territory, thus taking a heavy toll on Iranian military installations. While Iranian nuclear installations have suffered considerable damage, as per Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, 'It would be too much to assert that Iran's nuclear has been wiped out after the Israeli-American campaign.' Israeli Ambassador to France Joshua Zarka has stated that 14 key Iranian nuclear scientists were killed, implying a serious setback to Tehran's nuclear programme. In the Israeli attacks, as per Iran's Health Ministry, 627 of its citizens were killed and 4,870 were wounded.
Iran, despite taking heavy losses and having an adverse air situation, was able to cause damage to Haifa port, Ben Gurion airport and a few military bases. 29 Israelis were reported to be killed and 3461 injured during the Iranian strikes. This did have considerable impact, causing fear of psychosis amongst the civilians. Iranian proxies' militias Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah kept a low profile, as these militias have been considerably weakened by the Israelis sustained operations over the years.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The global polity favoured diplomacy and dialogue. Whereas the US was actively involved in the conflict, Russia and China – Iran's close allies – only extended diplomatic support. While Moscow advocated restraint and offered mediation, Beijing supported negotiation and projected an image of neutral peacemaker. Given the apprehensions of an oil crisis manifesting, renewed calls for negotiations and support for Qatar and Oman in mediation did accelerate the efforts for de-escalation and ceasefire. The Islamic world stood factionalised, keeping in view their national interests. The Arab nations, especially the Gulf countries, evidently are not in control of their foreign policies.
The future geopolitical and security architecture of the Middle East is in for a makeover. The superpower rivalry is bound to intensify with the US deepening its role as a security guarantor for Israel and Gulf states. China will leverage its economic influence to expand its mediation role and align with Russia to ensure regional stability. Russia will strive to adopt a balanced role, supply military technology to Iran and simultaneously cultivate ties with Israel and Arab states. Turkey will continue with its quest for regional dominance and project itself as a balancing force vis-à-vis Iran and Israel, as well as consolidate its position in Syria and Iraq. India, given its immense strategic and economic interest in the region, will need to be proactive given the prevailing fluid situation. Stable West Asia is in India's interest to progress its key initiatives like the 'India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor' (IMEEC) project and Chabahar port.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The new security framework of the region is in the making, wherein Israel and Iran would be engaged in a mutual threat containment regime, with heavy reliance on precision weapon systems. Tehran will retain the ability to reactivate 'non-state' proxies and is unlikely to give up its nuclear ambitions easily. Gulf states could be working towards evolving 'integrated regional defence systems' while engaging in deeper defence cooperation with the US and Israel, besides consolidating their role as mediators. The Abraham Accord tent is expected to get wider as more nations are likely to join in for security insurance. This will weaken the Palestine cause. Will the Arabs allow Tehran to take the lead? It is a moot question, given today Hamas's main backer is Iran. The salient strategic trends indicate the likelihood of weaponisation of energy infrastructure and militarisation of sea lanes of communication around the Red Sea. The global polity will be working to obviate this situation by seeking diversification of the energy supply lines.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Like all the major conflicts, the '12-Days War' leaves behind a trail of destruction and demolished geopolitical structures, leading to major strategic shifts. The future geopolitical landscape of West Asia will be multipolar in nature, with global powers and regional players recalibrating their strategies accordingly. The general environment is likely to remain highly fragile, marked by intense competition and confrontations fuelled by religious, ideological and identity politics, with the possibility of conflict looming large. Given the overarching complexities, the West Asia region is set to remain in a state of flux, lasting peace being a distant possibility.
The writer is a war veteran, currently Professor of Strategic and International Relations. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Cryptocurrency Live News & Updates : Trump Discusses U.S.-Europe Trade Challenges
29 Jun 2025 | 01:50:11 AM IST U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged positive relations with Europe but highlighted significant trade challenges, including heavy taxes and legal actions against American firms. In recent news, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the complexities of trade relations with Europe, noting the imposition of heavy taxes and legal disputes affecting American companies. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency sector is witnessing a surge in venture capital funding, with startups raising $739.5 million across 17 deals, led by Kalshi's impressive $185 million Series C round. The NFT market is also rebounding, with sales reaching $125 million, as Ethereum surpasses Polygon in sales volume. Bitcoin continues to show strength, recently hitting the $107,000 mark. Additionally, Elon Musk has shared his optimistic outlook on economic growth driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics, suggesting a future of significant surplus. These developments reflect a dynamic landscape in both trade and technology, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets and innovation. Show more


Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel Iran News Live Updates: Khamanei absent as Iran mourns top military leaders
Israel Iran Ceasefire Live: The surprise ceasefire between Iran and Israel, brokered by the Trump administration, has raised fresh questions about the future of US policy in the Middle East. Despite the truce, uncertainty remains over whether it will hold and how Washington will proceed, particularly with President Trump sidelining traditional diplomatic channels and relying on a small circle of White House advisers. US special envoy Steve Witkoff has called for comprehensive peace talks with Tehran. However, observers note confusion within Iran's leadership and question whether a negotiating team with real authority exists. Despite this, back-channel discussions are reportedly underway. The ceasefire followed US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump claimed had obliterated the programme. But a preliminary US intelligence assessment suggests only limited disruption, with key facilities damaged but not destroyed. Iran retains significant military capability, including the ability to threaten US forces. 01:23 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Rights groups alarmed as Iran's spy crackdown targets alleged traitors and dissenters Iran's wave of arrests and fast-tracked executions has drawn international concern. Amnesty International condemned the 'grossly unfair trials,' warning the campaign risks becoming a wider crackdown on political opposition. With no access to lawyers and ethnic minorities also detained, observers fear the regime is using the security threat to silence critics under the guise of national defence. 01:22 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Iran launches spy hunt after Israeli attacks Following Israel's deadly strikes on June 13, Iran has intensified efforts to root out suspected spies. Authorities have urged citizens to report suspicious behaviour like wearing hats or sunglasses at night. More than 10,000 microdrones were reportedly found in Tehran. Officials claim these drones were used in assassinations of nuclear scientists and other top figures. 01:21 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Iran slams US rhetoric as mourners chant 'boom, boom, Tel Aviv' As black-clad crowds filled Tehran's streets, Iranian state TV showed banners declaring 'Boom, boom, Tel Aviv.' The chants followed sharp US criticism of Khamanei, condemned by Iran's foreign ministry. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani were present, but tensions remain high as back-and-forth strikes with Israel leave the region on edge despite the declared ceasefire. 01:20 (IST) Jun 29 Bagheri, Salami, Tehranchi among Iran's fallen honoured Major General Mohammad Bagheri, killed with his wife and daughter, was among those honoured. Nuclear scientist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and his wife were also laid to rest. Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami, killed on day one of the conflict, will be buried Sunday. Of the 60 dead, four were women and four were children, state media reported. 01:20 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Khamanei absent as Iran mourns top military leaders Iran held a massive state funeral on Saturday for 60 figures killed in its war with Israel, including top generals and scientists. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei did not attend the ceremony, though he had earlier declared 'victory' in a video message. Thousands of mourners chanted anti-Israel and anti-US slogans, waving photos of the dead. A sudden ceasefire between Israel and Iran, facilitated by the Trump administration, has sparked fresh debate over the future direction of US involvement in the Middle East. While the truce has brought a pause to escalating tensions, analysts remain uncertain about how long it will last — or what comes next. US President Donald Trump, operating largely through a small group of White House advisers and bypassing traditional diplomatic institutions, played a central role in securing the agreement. This unconventional approach has left many questioning the durability of the deal and the strategic goals behind it. US special envoy Steve Witkoff has since urged a broader peace framework involving Tehran. However, confusion within the Iranian leadership has cast doubt on whether any team on the Iranian side has the authority or unity to negotiate meaningful terms. Despite the uncertainty, unofficial communication channels between the two sides are reportedly active. The ceasefire followed recent US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. President Trump had earlier claimed that the attacks crippled Iran's nuclear programme. But a preliminary assessment by American intelligence suggests the strikes caused only limited damage, with several key sites hit but not destroyed. Iran's military remains largely intact and still poses a potential threat to US assets in the region, even as both sides publicly commit to the ceasefire for now. The evolving situation has left many observers cautious, with some warning that the truce could be temporary unless backed by structured negotiations and clearer commitments from both sides.


The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.