MENA Strategic Bulletin –Special Edition: Israel–Iran

Iran and Israel recalibrate while ceasefire holds 

A ceasefire between Israel and Iran took effect early on Tuesday this week, ending a 12-day conflict that resulted in the deaths of at least 430 Iranians and 25 Israelis. The war began on June 13, when Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Iranian military, energy and nuclear facilities. Israeli leadership cited mounting concerns over Iran’s accelerating nuclear programme and intelligence indicating imminent threats to Israeli national security as reasons for the strikes. 

In response, Iran conducted a large-scale retaliation campaign, firing barrages of missiles and drones that breached Israel’s multilayered air defence system. Iranian strikes hit both military and civilian targets, including the southern Israeli city of Beersheba. The conflict rapidly expanded to involve the US, culminating in three major US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend.  

On Monday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responded with a missile attack on a US military base in Qatar. Later that night, US President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire had been reached, with mediation by Qatar. Trump confirmed that the agreement would take effect within hours and declared the war effectively over within 24. The ceasefire was acknowledged by both Iran and Israel, bringing a temporary halt to the most serious Israel-Iran conflict to date. 

While Trump has expressed interest in resuming negotiations with Iran, the conflict has reshaped the political and security environment in both countries and will result in strategic reassessments from both sides. 

Stakeholder and regional impact  

Despite the ceasefire, competing narratives persist. Iranian leader Khomeini claimed “victory” over Israel due to its retaliatory strikes, including the strike on the US base in Qatar. Tehran also credited its military success with forcing Washington to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. President Trump, by contrast, took credit for brokering peace and significantly degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities, emphasising that the US would not tolerate renewed uranium enrichment. 

Israeli airstrikes, some conducted with US B-2 bomber support, reportedly devastated key Iranian military assets. Western intelligence suggests that nearly half of Iran’s missile launchers were destroyed, while its air defences proved largely ineffective, allowing Israeli aircraft to strike targets deep inside Tehran with minimal resistance.  

Most damningly for Iran, the Israeli campaign exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s command structure and intelligence network as Mossad operatives assassinated several high-ranking Iranian officials and nuclear scientists. 

Iranian officials, while insisting on their readiness for future diplomacy, now face diminished leverage with the US. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has signalled willingness to reengage in nuclear talks, provided Israel adheres to the ceasefire. Still, the conflict has rattled Iran, prompting widespread disquiet domestically.  

Iran’s parliament has already voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), casting doubt on Tehran’s continued participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Officials argue that recent US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have rendered the NPT framework ineffective, positing that nuclear powers are striking non-nuclear powers with impunity, citing the Russia-Ukraine war alongside the 12-day war.  

In Israel, Netanyahu has framed the military campaign as a decisive strategic victory, highlighting the successful strikes on Iranian nuclear and command infrastructure as a setback for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu is using this narrative to bolster his domestic standing and international credibility, portraying Israel as both capable and unyielding in the face of existential threats.  

The timing has political implications: Trump is reportedly encouraging Netanyahu to wrap up the ongoing war in Gaza and, not coincidentally, seeking to have Netanyahu’s long-running criminal trial cancelled. An end to the war in Gaza would be a strategic victory for the US and potentially for Netanyahu himself, who would use the credit gained to attempt to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia and potentially Syria. 

For Qatar, the rapid conclusion of the ceasefire was a victory for its international standing and reputation as key regional mediator. Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani reportedly persuaded Tehran to accept the ceasefire in a last-minute call on Monday and is now positioning Doha as a potential host for renewed nuclear negotiations. Both Pezeshkian and Trump have acknowledged Qatar’s diplomatic contribution. 

What’s next?

The focus now shifts to whether a pathway exists for renewed US-Iran nuclear negotiations. The sixth round of talks between Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were abruptly cancelled following the June 13 strikes.  

Although Tehran appears willing to resume talks, mutual distrust will have increased following the US strikes. Iran still recalls Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, while the US foiled an alleged Iranian assassination plot against Trump last year. Trump, for his part, has oscillated between advocating for regime change and expressing openness to “doing business” with Tehran. 

The broader implications for global non-proliferation are significant. In the wake of the conflict, Tehran is considering withdrawal from the NPT under Article X – which permits a state party to withdraw if it deems that “extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country” –  a move that could have cascading effects. Iranian lawmakers argue that attacks on their nuclear infrastructure justify such an exit. Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA has described the US strikes as delivering an “irreparable blow” to the treaty’s credibility. If Iran were to withdraw, experts warn that it may encourage regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to reassess their own non-nuclear status. 

Amid these uncertainties, Iran’s Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh visited China this week, seeking diplomatic backing from Beijing. In meetings with Chinese defence officials, Nasirzadeh thanked China for its support and urged continued involvement in stabilising the region. 

In relation to Gaza, even if Netanyahu agrees to end the war under US pressure, the question of who will govern the territory remains a major obstacle. Any exit strategy would require a political framework that allows Netanyahu to claim both security success and an Israeli-approved post-Hamas alternative. 

The Iran-Israel ceasefire may have paused the violence, but the underlying geopolitical fault lines remain. Whether this ceasefire leads to lasting de-escalation or merely a temporary lull will depend on the ability and willingness of Iran, Israel and the US to pursue a sustainable diplomatic settlement. The days ahead will be critical.