On June 13, 2025, Israel launched its largest-ever aerial assault on Iran – a surprise strike deep into Iranian territory, including a direct hit on a state TV studio in Tehran. Over the following days, the two countries traded volleys of missiles and drones, drawing in global powers. U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly cut short the G7 summit in Canada on June 17 to address the conflict, declaring that he sought “an end, a real end, not a ceasefire,” and warning Americans that “everyone should immediately evacuate” Iran’s capital. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by contrast, warned Israel to expect “severe punishment” and vowed that Iran’s military would strike back powerfully. The result has been an intense stand-off: hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones have been fired toward Israel, while Israeli jets now patrol Iranian airspace and reportedly claim “full freedom of action.” Each side has inflicted damage – Iran says at least 224 dead (mostly civilians) and damage to critical infrastructure, while Israel reports 24 dead and dozens wounded.
This feature unpacks the fast-moving military and political developments of June 14–17, 2025, and the wider debates they have reignited. Western, Iranian, and other international sources are in stark disagreement on motives and outcomes. Israeli officials portray the strikes as necessary to halt an “existential” nuclear threat, while Iranian officials denounce them as war crimes. World leaders and experts, from the UN to think tanks, are debating the wisdom of pre‑emptive strikes and whether nuclear weapons truly deter aggression or only spread fear.
The Bombing of Tehran
On the afternoon of June 16, Israeli fighter jets attacked multiple targets in Tehran, including the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) studios. The strike came after Israel warned Iranians to evacuate the northern part of the city, an order modelled on routine warnings given to Gazans under attack. When the building housing IRIB’s studio was hit, anchor Sahar Emami was on air — and fled in panic. One second, she was leading the news; the next, the camera cut away as fire and debris exploded behind her.
Images from Tehran showed thick black smoke rising from the city center. The state-run broadcaster cut live transmission and reported that the bodies of reporters were found at the site. By nightfall, the Health Ministry in Tehran counted “at least 224 people” dead across Iran, mostly civilians, and many hundreds injured. Iran’s oil and gas installations were also struck, sending up plumes of smoke over the capital. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later acknowledged Israel’s intent was “to eliminate” Iran’s nuclear program and missile threat.
IRIB news anchor Sahar Emami flees her studio live on air as an Israeli bomb explodes seconds behind her (June 16, 2025). [AP/X via Times of Israel]
Back in Israel, the Iron Dome air defence system repeatedly intercepted incoming Iranian ballistic missiles and drones aimed at population centers. By June 17, Israeli officials claimed to have shot down nearly 90% of the nearly 400 missiles fired by Iran. Iranian state media acknowledged dozens of deaths in Iran and said retaliatory strikes had hit Tel Aviv and northern Israel, damaging a power station and oil facility. One Israeli general later boasted anonymously to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, “Iran is completely naked and we have full freedom of action. This is an unprecedented achievement,” referring to the killing of nearly Iran’s entire high commandtheguardian.com. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz even warned Khamenei that he might suffer Saddam Hussein’s fate – a thinly veiled threat of regime change.
U.S. Moves and the G7 Summit
Word of the Tehran bombing reached world capitals during a packed G7 summit in the Canadian Rockies. Trump, who had opposed Israeli strikes up to the last minute, suddenly left the summit on June 17, saying he needed to return to Washington “to deal with” the crisis. On Air Force One en route home, he told reporters he was seeking “an end, a real end, not a ceasefire” with Iran. He reiterated that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon” and insisted Israel would continue its full-scale campaign: “Nobody’s slowed up so far,” he said.
His abrupt exit drew mixed reactions. French President Emmanuel Macron had earlier remarked that Washington was quietly brokering a ceasefire, but Trump denied this, saying his departure was “nothing to do with” negotiations. On social media, he even admonished Iranians to evacuate Tehran, claiming he wanted “people to be safe,”. China, however, condemned the warning as “pouring oil” on the fire, warning that threats would only “intensify and widen” the conflict.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration quietly bolstered U.S. regional forces. The Pentagon moved carrier strike groups and additional fighter jets to the Middle East, and two U.S. officials confirmed that American Patriot missiles had helped shoot down some Iranian projectiles headed for Israeli cities. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Trump’s appointee) held talks with allies in Europe and the Middle East, but so far, the U.S. has given Israel a “blank check” to defend itself, even as some European governments urged caution. “Some allies stressed the need for restraint,” Reuters noted, contrasting them with Trump’s very public embrace of Israel’s strikes.
On the diplomatic track, a sixth round of nuclear talks scheduled in Oman was postponed. Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, told European counterparts that the bombing campaign had “dealt a blow to diplomacy,” blaming Israel for halting talks. Araghchi said Iran remained open to negotiation, but only if the other side showed sincerity: “If President Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war,” he said, “next steps are consequential.”
Tehran’s Defiance
Inside Iran, the mood is defiant and grim. Supreme Leader Khamenei made no overture for peace. On the contrary, at a televised address on June 13, he called Israel’s actions “a very big crime” whose consequences “will be heavy and harsh” for the “despicable” regime. He vowed that Iran’s armed forces “will act powerfully, with full force and ability… to render this regime completely helpless,”. The Revolutionary Guards, echoing their leader, announced that Iran would “break the back” of the Zionists and demanded unity among Muslim nations to repel the attackers.
Khamenei has not called for a ceasefire. Just the opposite: PressTV reported on June 13 that he declared Israel must now “await a harsh punishment”. Iranian officials have embraced the conflict as a continuation of the Gaza war. The president’s office released a statement asserting Israel’s bombing of Tehran was a “flagrant violation of international law,” and summoned European diplomats to complain. Still, with the regime under unprecedented pressure – including the sudden deaths of a dozen top generals – some signs of strain are visible. Tehran’s Grand Bazaar closed as a mark of mourning, and many residents joined social media pleas to “stay calm, pray”. One internal Telegram channel noted, “Iran’s air defences have never been so porous.”
Across Iran’s ally network, the tone was equally militant. Hamas and Hezbollah leaders demanded retaliation; the Houthi rebels in Yemen threatened to close the Red Sea to shipping. Arab governments publicly condemned Israel’s action: the Arab League called it “a dangerous escalation” and urged an immediate halt. A few leaders – Qatar’s foreign minister, for instance – expressed anxiety when Israel hit Iran’s shared South Pars gas field, stressing that pumping continued for now. The United Nations has urged both sides to avoid further civilian suffering, but the only Iranian leader’s voice the world heard on June 17 was Khamenei’s stern warning, not a plea for peace.
Global Reactions: A Tale of Two Narratives
News of the Tehran strike set off a chorus of international reactions. In Washington and Jerusalem, officials framed the attack as justified self-defence. President Trump, his national security aides, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu all repeated the rationale that Iran was “racing” for a bomb and “had to be stopped,”. Netanyahu told his press briefing, “Israel is committed to removing the Iranian nuclear threat – an existential danger – and we will not give up on it,”. Israeli TV anchored repeatedly showed footage of Iran’s missiles falling into the Mediterranean, underscoring how near disaster came to Israeli civilians.
In Tehran and its regional allies, the narrative was the opposite: Israel was an aggressor and a war criminal. Hardliner papers blasted “Zionist terror” and published maps of all Israeli cities under Iranian firing range. State media carried official appeals for calm, urging Iranians to trust the government’s eventual victory. In public, Khamenei and President Pezeshkian repeated that Israel “started this war” with its aggression, and Iran’s counterstrikes were a righteous defence.
World powers spoke with more nuance. The European Union’s foreign policy chief and several UN ambassadors urged both sides to de-escalate and protect civilians, implicitly criticizing Israel for the strike. At the UN’s nuclear watchdog in Vienna, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed alarm: he told the BBC that Natanz’s main enrichment hall had likely been “severely damaged” by the power cuts from the Israeli attack. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres privately called the confrontation “deeply worrying” and appealed to Washington to prevent a regional conflagration. China and Russia, neither officially backing the violence, warned the U.S. and Israel against widening the war. China’s foreign ministry explicitly rebuked Trump’s evacuation warning as dangerous brinksmanship.
In short, international reactions broke along familiar lines. In the West, some were relieved Israel struck Iran before a bomb was completed; others feared the collapse of decades-long nuclear diplomacy. In the Middle East, Iran’s friends heralded its retaliation, while its foes (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) watched cautiously. Little consensus emerged, reflecting deep regional and ideological divides.
The Nuclear Shadow and the Deterrence Debate
Underlying the crisis is the thorny issue of nuclear weapons. Israel has long argued that it cannot allow a nuclear-armed Iran. It is widely believed – though never officially admitted – that Israel itself possesses nuclear warheads. Iran, by contrast, claims its program is purely peaceful (as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). In the days before the strikes, the IAEA had already reported Iran in breach of its NPT commitments for the first time in nearly 20 years. In other words, Tehran’s atomic activities were already at the center of an international stand-off.
Israel now says its bombing has “set back” Iran’s nuclear efforts by years, but analysts caution that any physical damage may only reinforce Tehran’s determination. As Vox analyst Dara Mohammadi notes, a one-off airstrike cannot permanently halt a nuclear program – and may even entrench the goal of acquiring a bomb. “If one Israeli strike successfully hits Iran’s enrichment plants, it might only confirm Iran’s interest in having a nuclear deterrent,” he writes; Iran could simply rebuild its facilities later, starting from scratch if necessary. Michael Leiter, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington, likewise admitted to the New York Times that crippling Fordow (the deep mountain site) would be essential – and acknowledged it would be daunting without U.S. help.
This highlights a key debate: does having nuclear arms create safety or danger? Deterrence theory holds that atomic weapons confer ultimate respect and protection – the classic nuclear stalemate of the Cold War. Indeed, some argue that Israel’s ambiguous arsenal deterred Iran for decades. But global norms and a growing non-proliferation ethos say otherwise. At the UN, Zambia’s delegate warned that nuclear weapons are “no place in the modern world” and that “relying on deterrence means only perpetuating a cycle of fear,”. In that view, spreading the bomb is exactly what makes the world less stable.
World leaders are split. Trump has bluntly said he wants Iran’s “complete give-up” of enrichment, reflecting a zero-tolerance nuclear stance. European leaders, while privately acknowledging Israel’s fears, urge a return to diplomacy, worried that a regional arms race could follow. In theory, Israel’s strike could assert that only a nuclear-armed Iran would dare challenge Israel in future. In practice, it may drive Iran toward the bomb to restore balance – a gamble likely to be played out over the years. For now, the philosophical rift remains: some policymakers cite deterrence to justify strikes; others see them as nuclear proliferation in action.
What Lies Ahead
As of June 17, neither side shows signs of backing down. Netanyahu has publicly vowed three war aims: to disable Iran’s nuclear program, destroy its missile arsenal, and dismantle the so-called “axis of terror” around Israel. Iran’s leaders have vowed revenge and appear willing to continue exchanges, at least through proxy networks and ballistic barrages. Rockets from Yemen and militias in Iraq have already begun testing Israeli defences again. In Washington, Trump’s team is weighing how far to go: U.S. officials note that any Iranian attack on American forces would be met with “overwhelming force”.
The crisis may yet abate or blow wider. One scenario is that this is a short, brutal showdown over nuclear sites, and both sides then revert to muted conflict. Another is that Iran, stung to the core, unleashes its full arsenal of missiles – potentially hitting Israeli cities, oil facilities in the Gulf, or even provoking U.S. engagement. Experts caution that the true long-term outcome is unpredictable. As Ken Pollack of the Middle East Institute observes, Iran may have secret stockpiles and hardened bunkers that even this assault cannot touch. Whether Iran is now a “paper tiger” or will strike back with overwhelming force, “we do not know,” Mohammadi concludes.
Behind the data and the rhetoric, ordinary people in Tehran and Tel Aviv are scrambling. Many Iranians have jammed highways out of the capital, fearing the worst. In Israel, emergency drills have resumed, and civilians have been told to brace for more alarms. For now, however, the leaders in Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran speak only in absolutes. Israel’s prime minister insists the campaign must continue “until” Iran is broken; Iran’s supreme leader has said he will avenge every attack.
In this volatile moment, the voices of moderation are faint. Even pleas for a “ceasefire” in Gaza, raised in international forums, have not halted the onslaught between Iran and Israel. Instead, the crisis has sharpened the very debate it embodied: the clash between a world still haunted by nuclear deterrence and a global community striving for a nuclear-free Middle East. The answer to which philosophy holds sway will be written in the decisions of these leaders – and in the wreckage, or restraint, that follows.
Sources:
International media reports and commentaries from June 14–17, 2025, including Reutersreuters.comreuters.com, The Guardiantheguardian.comtheguardian.com, CBS Newscbsnews.comcbsnews.com, Al Jazeeraaljazeera.comaljazeera.com, Iran’s PressTVpresstv.ir, Times of Israeltimesofisrael.com, and other outlets. Broader perspectives included official statements and expert analysesvox.compress.un.org.
