Executive Summary
A twelve-day military confrontation between Israel, the United States on one side, and Iran on the other, marked the beginning of a new era of geopolitical uncertainty in the region. The conflict began on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drone attacks against Israeli targets. The United States then intervened militarily, striking three key Iranian nuclear sites. A ceasefire, brokered by Qatar, was reached on June 25, 2025.
While the declared objective of the strikes was to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the underlying aim appeared to be regime change. Conflicting narratives soon emerged regarding the extent of the damage: U.S. President Donald Trump declared the Iranian nuclear facilities “completely destroyed,” while intelligence assessments suggested the program was only temporarily disrupted—likely delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months. Israel's strikes dealt a severe blow to Iran’s leadership structure, reportedly killing over 31 senior military and nuclear officials. Iran is also estimated to have lost around 35% of its ballistic missile stockpile and nearly half of its launch platforms.
Despite external military pressure, the Iranian regime displayed a degree of resilience. Nevertheless, the attacks sparked public concern over the government’s ability to protect both the population and critical strategic assets. In response, authorities initiated a widespread internal crackdown, arresting more than 1,500 individuals in the first two weeks of the conflict. The strikes inflicted significant infrastructure damage, with reconstruction costs projected to reach tens of billions of dollars, compounding Iran’s economic challenges.
At the regional level, Gulf States responded with a cautious and measured tone, urging restraint and diplomatic resolution. However, Iran’s retaliatory strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar served as a critical wake-up call to the region. The incident—combined with mounting skepticism over Washington’s reliability as a security guarantor—has driven Gulf countries to adopt more pragmatic and diversified foreign policies. These States are now actively seeking to expand security partnerships and reduce their historical dependence on the United States.
The confrontation revealed glaring weaknesses in the so-called "Axis of Resistance," which failed to coordinate any meaningful response in defense of Iran. Key players, such as Hezbollah and remnants of the Syrian regime, experienced major setbacks. The lack of solidarity has led Tehran to reassess its regional strategy. Moreover, some of Iran’s allies are re-evaluating their alignment, questioning Tehran’s willingness—or ability—to offer reciprocal support during crises. Many now appear to be prioritizing national interests over collective resistance. A notable exception was the Houthi group, which managed to maintain its alliance with Iran while preserving its local and regional leverage.
The conflict further exposed the limitations of Iran’s strategic partnerships with China and Russia. Support from both Beijing and Moscow was confined to rhetoric, with neither engaging militarily. This lack of tangible assistance underscores the transactional nature of these relationships, which appear to be based more on overlapping interests than any formal defense alignment.
Regarding its nuclear ambitions, Iran’s capabilities have not been eliminated—only temporarily hindered. The regime may now adopt a posture of “nuclear ambiguity”, aiming to buy time and extract concessions from the international community. Given the inability of the “Axis of Resistance” to defend Iranian territory, Tehran may shift toward a more assertive doctrine, potentially moving closer to developing a nuclear bomb. Such a development could spark a wider regional nuclear arms race.