Israel–Iran airstrikes escalate as Trump demands Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’

Aerial conflict between Israel and Iran entered its fifth straight day on June 17, 2025, following a surprise Israeli offensive on June 13 that reportedly struck critical elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to Israeli sources, that operation resulted in the deaths of senior nuclear scientists and key military commanders, including Chief of Staff Ali Shadmani and Revolutionary Guard leader Hossein Salami.

While the United States did not participate in the initial strike, President Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the U.S. “could get involved.” His remarks were followed by a series of provocative social media posts that targeted Iran’s leadership and called for the regime’s “unconditional surrender.”

Satellite imagery confirmed damage to above-ground structures at Iran’s Natanz nuclear site, with updated assessments from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating that the underground enrichment halls may also have been hit. The strikes marked the most expansive Israeli operation on Iranian soil since the covert cyberattacks of the early 2010s.

What institutional and geopolitical dynamics are influencing US involvement and global diplomatic pressures?

After abruptly returning from the G7 summit, President Trump intensified his war rhetoric, warning Iran’s leadership and instructing civilians in Tehran to evacuate. In one post, Trump claimed, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding… he is an easy target.” Though he insisted that there were “no plans to kill” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he added, “Our patience is wearing thin.”

Vice President JD Vance echoed the president’s stance, stating that Trump was consistent in his opposition to Iranian uranium enrichment. However, some conservative voices have expressed concern about the risk of U.S. military entanglement. European leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, offered a more restrained outlook, urging diplomatic resolution and minimizing speculation about U.S. intervention.

At the institutional level, the United Nations called for immediate de-escalation, while France, Germany, and the European Union issued statements cautioning against further military exchanges. Russia and China have also weighed in diplomatically but stopped short of siding with Tehran.

How has Israel integrated covert operations with overt military strikes inside Iran?

Israel’s military strategy this time—dubbed Operation Rising Lion—has combined covert drone warfare with traditional aerial bombardment. Sources with knowledge of Israeli operations claim Mossad had pre-positioned drones inside Iran to disable radar and mobile launchers in advance of airstrikes. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) then deployed more than 200 aircraft, including modified F‑35I stealth fighters, to carry out precision strikes against nuclear sites, airbases, and intelligence centers across western Iran.

According to the IDF, the targets were selected based on real-time intelligence, and included multiple radar installations, surface-to-air missile batteries, and electronic warfare outposts. This fusion of espionage and high-powered conventional firepower marks a strategic evolution in Israeli doctrine—showcasing its capability to hit deep Iranian territory while avoiding American coordination.

What has been the Iranian and public reaction following these attacks and evacuations?

In response to the escalation, the Iranian government issued partial evacuations in central Tehran, with over 100,000 residents reportedly leaving the city by June 15. Civilian infrastructure, including gas stations and intercity transit, experienced significant strain. Health authorities deployed mobile medical units along major evacuation routes.

State media claimed that platforms such as WhatsApp were being used to leak military coordinates and issued warnings of impending bans on foreign communication apps. While Iran has not confirmed the identities of the scientists killed, the Revolutionary Guard has vowed retaliation, and unconfirmed reports suggest missile fire directed at Mossad-linked sites in Tel Aviv.

Public sentiment within Iran appears to be divided. Some hardline segments have praised what they called “resistance resilience,” while moderate and reformist voices have called on the regime to avoid full-scale war. Civilian fears have intensified amid online reports of fuel shortages, banking outages, and rolling power cuts in border provinces.

What is the current state of US–Iran nuclear diplomacy and institutional oversight by the IAEA?

Prior to the latest hostilities, indirect U.S.–Iran negotiations were underway through mediators in Oman, with some progress reported after President Trump had sent a direct letter to Khamenei in March. However, those talks have since been suspended. Iranian officials cited “hostile actions” as the reason for halting backchannel discussions.

Despite this breakdown, international nuclear oversight continues. The IAEA reiterated that while surface structures at Natanz were severely damaged, its June 2025 report found no evidence of an ongoing, structured nuclear weapons program. Director-General Rafael Grossi emphasized that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remained “at unprecedented levels for a non-nuclear-weapon state,” but stopped short of declaring an immediate proliferation threat.

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, told Congress that while Iran was not actively building a weapon, its advanced enrichment capability placed it “dangerously close” to breakout potential.

How have energy markets and global economic indicators reacted to the Israel–Iran escalation?

The geopolitical turmoil has sent shockwaves through global financial markets. Brent crude surged over 10% in the immediate aftermath of the June 13 strike, amid fears that the Strait of Hormuz—responsible for nearly 20% of global oil flows—could become a flashpoint. Traders also scrambled to reposition into safe-haven assets, driving up the price of gold and the Swiss franc.

In Iran, the rial suffered a sharp depreciation, and banks implemented withdrawal limits in several provinces. Israel’s Ministry of Finance issued a wartime economic bulletin projecting an additional $1.5 billion in defense spending for the second half of 2025. Meanwhile, global defense stocks rallied, reflecting heightened investor confidence in aerospace and cybersecurity sectors.

What are the next steps likely for military escalation, diplomatic resolution, or broader geopolitical impact?

Analysts warn that the possibility of further Israeli strikes remains high. Military observers believe facilities at Fordow, Parchin, or even Tehran’s missile testing sites could be targeted if Iran escalates further. President Trump has also hinted at a potential use of bunker-busting ordnance, suggesting that U.S. military options remain “on the table.”

At the diplomatic level, calls for de-escalation are mounting. The European Union is expected to convene an emergency session, and backchannel efforts via Gulf allies are reportedly ongoing. However, with Iranian leadership under domestic pressure not to appear weak, and Israeli officials unwilling to halt strikes without a cessation of rocket fire, a near-term ceasefire remains uncertain.

Expert sentiment and implications for long-term regional stability

This week’s developments represent a shift from proxy conflict to direct confrontation. Israel’s hybrid tactics—combining cyber sabotage, intelligence-led drone strikes, and full-spectrum airpower—highlight the blurring lines between covert and overt warfare. The operation’s precision and scale have sent a strong signal to adversaries about Israel’s evolving doctrine.

Yet the risk of uncontrolled escalation looms large. Even as the IAEA maintains that Iran’s nuclear activity is under monitoring, the political will to adhere to international frameworks is weakening. Trump’s aggressive messaging, paired with Israeli operational boldness, has pushed the region closer to a tipping point.

For the global community, this conflict now tests the limits of diplomatic restraint and the credibility of non-proliferation agreements. The next 72 hours are likely to determine whether strategic deterrence has succeeded—or whether regional war is imminent.