Tehran burns, missiles hit Tel Aviv: Is this the Israel–Iran war the world feared?

Why did Israel target Iran’s Defense Ministry as Tehran launched another wave of deadly missile strikes?

Israel intensified its military campaign on June 13–15, 2025, launching an expansive series of airstrikes against Iranian infrastructure, including the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tehran and vital energy sites. This came as Iran retaliated with a fresh wave of missiles targeting central and northern Israel. The simultaneous exchanges marked a sharp intensification of violence just days after Israel’s surprise air offensive against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Explosions rocked Tehran overnight, igniting fires across industrial zones and the energy corridor. In Israel, officials confirmed that multiple residential areas—including Tel Aviv and the Galilee region—were hit, killing at least ten civilians and injuring over a hundred more. Among the dead were an 80-year-old woman, a 69-year-old woman, and a 10-year-old boy. Meanwhile, Iranian state media showed dramatic footage of oil and gas facilities ablaze following suspected Israeli drone and missile strikes. With satellite imagery confirming extensive damage at nuclear, military, and fuel infrastructure, both sides are grappling with rapidly rising civilian and military casualties.

Why did the recent Israel–Iran conflict escalate into direct missile strikes after years of proxy warfare?

For decades, Israel and Iran engaged in covert hostilities and proxy conflict through groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. That paradigm was shattered by Israel’s new operation, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, which involved direct, overt strikes deep inside Iranian territory. This marked the first state-to-state exchange of this scale between the two regional powers since the 1980s. Israeli leaders invoked the Begin Doctrine, a long-standing policy of preemptively neutralizing nuclear threats in the region. With Tehran’s uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels, Israeli military planners moved beyond sabotage and covert killings to full-scale air warfare.

How much damage did Israel inflict on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan?

According to satellite analyses and IAEA confirmations, Israel’s strikes on the Natanz nuclear facility destroyed key above-ground infrastructure, including buildings housing over 1,700 centrifuges and power supply units. Isfahan’s uranium conversion facility was also severely damaged, with the UN nuclear watchdog confirming four “critical buildings” were impacted. Israeli officials estimate that repairs to Natanz and Isfahan could take “more than a few weeks.” Meanwhile, Iran claimed that the underground centrifuge halls at Natanz were untouched, though experts caution that electrical losses may still impair operations. Notably, Israel denied striking Fordow, the fortified underground enrichment site.

What is the global diplomatic reaction to the targeting of Iranian nuclear infrastructure by Israel?

International sentiment has largely shifted toward urgent calls for de-escalation. China’s foreign minister called the Israeli strikes on nuclear infrastructure a “dangerous precedent.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres and EU officials urged restraint, while Russia denounced the operations as violations of international law. In Washington, the Biden administration reiterated that the U.S. was not involved in the Israeli attacks, though American air-defense systems stationed in the region helped intercept several incoming Iranian missiles. On the economic front, Brent crude surged over 10% to $93 per barrel, reflecting fears of supply disruption via the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. equity markets dropped sharply amid the turmoil, while safe-haven assets like gold and the Swiss franc gained ground.

How has public sentiment in both Iran and Israel shifted in the wake of these deadly attacks?

Inside Israel, while many support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s effort to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, public concern is rising over the civilian cost and long-term repercussions of the air campaign. Emergency crews were deployed across major cities after Iranian missiles struck high-density areas, leaving behind scorched neighborhoods and displaced residents. In Iran, grief and outrage over the loss of civilians and military leaders—including top generals such as Mohammad Bagheri, Hossein Salami, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh—have fueled protests against the government’s preparedness and international isolation. The replacement of Hajizadeh with General Majid Mousavi signals Tehran’s determination to maintain its aerospace missile capabilities despite significant losses.

What impact has the renewed conflict had on U.S.–Iran nuclear negotiations and diplomatic engagement?

Ongoing backchannel negotiations between the U.S. and Iran—mediated by Oman—were abruptly cancelled. Iran’s top diplomat Abbas Araghchi declared the talks “unjustifiable” following the Israeli strikes and blamed Washington for indirectly supporting the offensive. A senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously, reiterated America’s commitment to diplomacy, though analysts view the collapse of talks as a significant blow to hopes of nuclear de-escalation. With the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) effectively defunct and both sides posturing militarily, any future agreement would require a reset in trust and framework.

Can regional powers like Russia or China still influence the outcome of the Israel–Iran confrontation?

Both Russia and China have maintained close economic and diplomatic ties with Iran, especially following Western sanctions. Yet neither has shown willingness to directly intervene. Analysts believe Moscow and Beijing prefer to exert influence through multilateral channels like the UN Security Council or BRICS forums, rather than escalate military risk. That said, both nations are expected to increase pressure on Iran to avoid triggering a broader regional war—especially given the stakes around nuclear non-proliferation and energy market stability.

What could this conflict mean for nuclear non-proliferation and regional balance in the Middle East?

This is the most direct and destructive confrontation between Iran and Israel in modern history. The targeted destruction of nuclear facilities by a sovereign state risks setting a precedent for future “preventive strikes,” which could undermine the international non-proliferation regime. Some security experts warn that Iran, feeling existentially threatened, may now re-evaluate its nuclear doctrine despite Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s fatwa banning nuclear weapons. Others suggest the strikes might harden Tehran’s resolve to pursue strategic deterrence more aggressively. Regardless, the diplomatic architecture built around the NPT and the JCPOA is now in urgent need of repair—or replacement.

What are security analysts and institutional experts predicting about the risks of further escalation and nuclear fallout?

Experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies argue that Israel’s strikes have set Iran’s nuclear program back by at least a year but not eliminated it. The deeper issue, they caution, is whether Iran now feels it must pursue deterrence to avoid regime vulnerability. Meanwhile, institutional investors are pricing in regional risk premiums, with energy equities and defense contractors gaining sharply. Global powers must act swiftly to stabilize talks before proxy escalations spiral into wider war.