Iran vs Israel: What just happened?
The Middle East, and much of the world, woke up with a sigh of relief after US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
But did the rivals really agree to a ceasefire? And is this truly the end of the first direct war between two states that have spent decades fighting in the shadows? Not quite.
Israel quickly claimed it had accepted a ceasefire proposal, even after Iran launched four missile barrages. Tehran, for its part, said nothing of the sort. It denied firing missiles that Israel insisted Tehran had launched. And the region is back to the familiar trade of blame, bluffs, denials and terrifying moments.
There are many scenarios now on the table. But first, a quick recap of how we got here.
Caught off-guard
On Friday, June 13, shortly after the deadline the Trump administration had set for US-Iran nuclear talks to deliver results lapsed, Israel launched a series of strikes inside Iran.
It hit hard, killing top generals and bombing nuclear enrichment sites and Iranian air defences. The attacks came after a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that found Iran had breached international obligations over its nuclear activities. That finding gave Israel the supposed grounds to attack.
Iran, caught off guard, had assumed war was off the table. Instead, it was dealt a heavy blow.
Tehran struck back fast. Devastating missile attacks rained down on Israeli cities. For the first time, both Tehran and Tel Aviv were under direct heavy attacks, no proxies, no buffers.
Until now, the shadow war had consumed Beirut, Baghdad and Sanaa. But this was the first full-scale war Israel has fought with a state in decades – and Iran's first since the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
"A direct clash between Israel and Iran was inevitable," said a regional security official.
Regime change?
What began as a campaign to cripple Iran's nuclear programme quickly exposed a deeper agenda: start of a long-term regime change campaign. Or at least a dramatic recalibration of power in Tehran.
But why now?
Despite stalled nuclear talks, Iran's defences were crumbling. Hezbollah was overstretched. The Assad regime in Syria, gone. And for the first time, Iran had to defend its own soil, from its own soil.
Israeli Mossad units were reportedly activated inside Iran. Car bombs, drone strikes – even Evin prison was hit. The message was clear: no sanctuary.
Some EU leaders began echoing Israeli rhetoric, talking about 'zero enrichment' as a baseline. It was no longer just about curbing Tehran's nuclear programme; it was about dismantling Iran's deterrence.
"This war isn't primarily about the nuclear programme – that's just a secondary concern for the Israelis. The fundamental objective is toppling the Iranian regime," explained the security source.
"But if military strikes don't lead to popular unrest and regime change, they become pointless. So what's the point then? Expect more chaos. More destruction."
This is still Israel's golden window: a chance to take down an adversary 2,000km away with full western backing, and maybe turn the 'energy monster' into a regional ally.
"The Israelis believe that regime collapse would shake the entire region, bringing the Middle East firmly under joint Israeli-American control. It's hard to see it happen without blood. Too much blood," a Middle East diplomat and former Minister of Foreign Affairs told The National.
Enter the US
But Israel's campaign seemed to fall short of victory. That's when the US stepped in.
American bombers, flying straight from their homeland, hit three major Iranian nuclear sites. A bold gesture from Mr Trump, enough to help the Israelis, but (at least on paper) avoid all-out war.
Iran didn't buy it.
Behind the scenes, it orchestrated a symbolic but pointed attack on the biggest US base in the region, in Qatar. A reminder that if the regime feels cornered, Gulf allies could also be in the crosshairs.
The message to Mr Trump was layered: do not push for regime change, and do not expect us to sit quietly while you strike us. Iran was willing to risk its most precious regional ties to protect itself, or at least protect its ruling structure.
What now?
Mr Trump eventually announced a ceasefire. Israel accepted. Iran did not say it did. It denied launching missiles but also refused any 'imposed' agreement.
Instead, Tehran said it wanted to negotiate a ceasefire. What it does not want is a Lebanon-style deal where Israel retains the right to strike anytime, anywhere.
Iran wants firm terms. But is it overplaying its hand, again? Or is it holding its most dangerous bargaining chip: hidden, highly enriched uranium, as leverage?
Either way, it is hard to imagine Israel backing down now. The window to change Iran is wide open. But it will not stay open forever, especially if Tehran's hardliners take over and silence any remaining reformist voices.
The same goes for Israel. The current leadership is driven by an extreme agenda. And they feel emboldened. Unleashed. And what are they capable of? Think Lebanon. Think Gaza. Now think bigger.
Also, Israel is believed to have about 90 nuclear warheads.
"This is a pivotal war. It will define the future of the Middle East. Victory for one side, defeat for the other. It can't be a tie," warned the diplomat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
What the Israel-Iran-US conflict taught Pakistan
The freshly thawed conflict between Israel and Iran, including recent US strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, placed Pakistan in a fragile position, caught between regional loyalties and strategic considerations. Islamabad shares a 905‑km border with Iran across the province of Balochistan, a porous and volatile region where cross-border militant networks are already active. Historically, Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan in 1947, and supported it in the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, building enduring political and cultural ties. Pakistan has responded to the Iran-Israel standoff by extending what it describes as 'unequivocal and unambiguous' diplomatic and moral support to Tehran, strongly condemning Israeli air strikes, along with the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, as blatant violations of Iran's sovereignty and international law. While Iran acknowledged and welcomed Islamabad's solidarity, Pakistan deliberately avoided making military commitments, underscoring its caution. On Monday, Iran launched a choreographed attack on a US base in Qatar as retaliation for US strikes. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters While the strikes were followed by US President Donald Trump declaring a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, the conflict cemented the notion that growing volatility in the Middle East can easily land on Pakistan's doorstep in South Asia. Engagement with Washington A meeting on 19 June at the White House between Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's army chief, and US President Donald Trump underscored Pakistan's heightened diplomatic mobilisation. The meeting was framed primarily around Pakistan's role in diffusing a recent India-Pakistan conflict, but the ongoing Iran-Israel confrontation at the time, and the potential for direct US military involvement, were central to the discussions, experts believe. After the meeting, Trump said that 'Pakistan knows Iran very well, better than most', and added that Islamabad was 'not happy' with the current escalation. 'In every respect, this conflict is likely to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, and we must begin preparing for its impact' - Pakistani security official While US officials extended public thanks for Pakistan's help in de-escalating regional flare-ups, Islamabad emphasised that it had offered no military advice and advocated for diplomacy, citing potential harm to US interests as unwise. Following his four-day visit to the United States, General Asim Munir travelled directly to Turkey to attend an emergency summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which was convened to address the Iran-Israel crisis. Pakistan also abstained from a recent International Atomic Energy Agency vote condemning Iran, reinforcing its diplomatic caution. However, Pakistani security officials have expressed concern that the country may not be able to shield itself from the spillover effects of the Iran conflict. 'In every respect, this conflict is likely to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, and we must begin preparing for its impact,' a security official based in Islamabad told Middle East Eye. Sectarian tensions Pakistan's security outlook with regard to Iran is shaped by a complex matrix of historical ties, geographical proximity and sectarian sensitivities, placing Islamabad in a strategically precarious position. While Pakistan is a majority Sunni country, it is home to a sizeable Shia minority, estimated on the low end to constitute between 15–20 percent of its nearly 250 million citizens. This community holds deep religious, cultural and emotional ties with Iran, widely viewed by Shia Muslims as a spiritual and ideological centre. These connections make Pakistan's position particularly delicate, as the appetite for national militarism rises in the Middle East. Analysts and Shia leaders warn that any overt support by Islamabad for military action against Iran, or even a stance of perceived neutrality, could exacerbate sectarian tensions and trigger political unrest. Pakistan has a long and often violent history of sectarian conflict, usually inflamed by geopolitical shifts in the Muslim world. 'Targeting him (Ayatollah Khamenei) would provoke serious emotional and political consequences, including within Pakistan' - Syed Ali Rizvi, Shia cleric In Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, thousands marched on Sunday in protest against US and Israeli strikes on Iran. 'Any alignment with a western or Israeli-led offensive against Tehran would not only alienate a significant portion of our population but could also destabilise the internal security fabric of the country,' Syed Ali Raza Rizvi, a Shia cleric in Karachi, told MEE. Rizvi warned that attempts to forcibly dislodge Iran's clerical leadership would carry profound repercussions. 'Ayatollah Khamenei is not like Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein, or Bashar al-Assad. He is a marja [religious authority], a source of emulation for millions of Shias worldwide. Targeting him would provoke serious emotional and political consequences, including within Pakistan.' Some experts noted that Shia groups in Pakistan, including influential figures in mainstream political parties, could pressure the government to adopt a more assertive pro-Iran stance. Last year, Pakistan banned the Zainabiyoun Brigade, a militia reportedly backed by Iran and known for recruiting Pakistani Shia youth to fight alongside the now ousted Assad government in Syria, Tehran's key ally before its collapse in December. 'We saw how emotionally charged the atmosphere became in Pakistan after the US drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani in 2020,' said Ali Hilal, a Karachi-based analyst on Middle Eastern affairs. Pakistan-Iran border fallout The 905-km border along Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan is known for its porous frontiers and overlapping ethnic communities. On the Iranian side lies Sistan-Baluchestan, home to similar Baloch populations. Much in a similar vein to its border with Afghanistan, cross-border ethnic ties further south complicate Pakistan's ability to remain insulated from regional instability. Analysts stress the risk that instability in Iran could create 'ungoverned spaces' along the Pakistan border, fueling militant movements and reigniting separatist ambitions. 'Iran's internal conflict dynamics are never fully contained within its borders - they inevitably spill over into Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan, where a separatist insurgency is already simmering,' said Imtiaz Baloch, an Islamabad-based researcher specialising in cross-border ethnic movements and regional militancy. Why did Pakistan and Iran bomb each other and then become friends again? Read More » Islamabad and Tehran have traded accusations for years: Pakistan claims Iran offers refuge to Pakistani separatists such as the Baloch Liberation Army and Baloch Liberation Front, while Iran accuses Pakistan of harbouring Iranian Sunni militants, including Jaish al‑Adl. Tensions flared in January 2024 when both struck each other's territory with missiles, a rare but serious escalation. The idea of a pan-Baloch homeland, often referred to as 'Greater Balochistan', has gained renewed traction among militant and nationalist circles. Groups such as the Free Balochistan Movement, led by Hyrbyair Marri, a self-exiled Baloch separatist based in the UK, have openly advocated for an independent Baloch state carved out of both Pakistan and Iran. The resurgence of such rhetoric, analysts warn, could further destabilise the volatile border region. Islamabad has already sealed five border crossings and launched countermeasures in Balochistan since mid‑June to curb militant infiltration and deter refugee influx, recalling the Afghan refugee crises after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the Taliban's takeovers in 1996 and 2021. Nukes and Israeli air supremacy Another critical concern for Pakistan stems from the precedent set by US and Israeli air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities - and the potential extension of Israeli aerial dominance near Pakistan's western frontier. The strikes are particularly alarming for Islamabad, a nuclear-armed state bordering its long-time rival, India, another nuclear power. The notion that one country can target another's nuclear infrastructure with apparent impunity raises profound questions about the erosion of global non-proliferation norms, experts said. 'Israel achieving total air dominance over Iran would dramatically shift the regional security calculus and threaten the strategic balance' - Pakistani foreign ministry official 'Pakistan has condemned the US attack on nuclear sites, possibly with the thought of the dangerous precedent that it sets in its hostility with India,' said Farhan Hanif Siddiqi, a professor at the school of politics and international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Siddiqui added that Pakistan had to assert that its nuclear capabilities and deterrence aren't aimed westward. "It (Pakistan) has made it clear that its strategic and nuclear forces remain directed at India and not any other country,' Siddiqi told MEE. A less direct but equally profound concern for Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel and views it as an enemy, is the reported expansion of Israeli air superiority deep into Iranian airspace. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump publicly claimed that Israeli forces were able to take total control of Tehran's skies, a declaration that didn't go unnoticed in Islamabad. 'Israel achieving total air dominance over Iran would dramatically shift the regional security calculus and threaten the strategic balance on Pakistan's western flank,' said a Pakistani foreign ministry official. 'It is not just an Iranian concern. It sets a dangerous precedent that could reverberate across the region, including here in South Asia.' Reset in US-Pakistan relations Islamabad saw the Munir-Trump meeting as a vital diplomatic reset after strained ties under the Biden administration, where issues like Pakistan's missile programme had soured US perceptions. After a shaky ceasefire, US and Israel can hardly claim to have deterred Iran Read More » The Pakistan military's media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations, boasted that the meeting achieved more in three days than India had in three decades - underscoring Islamabad's pride in repositioning itself at the centre of US strategic attention. 'Pakistan values its renewed relations with Iran but not at the cost of relations with the US, which it has tried hard to reset, given the recent Trump-Munir meeting,' said Siddiqi. But some analysts caution against interpreting the meeting as a fundamental shift in US policy. They note that Washington's relationship with Pakistan has historically been driven by short-term strategic needs rather than long-term alignment. 'US policy toward Pakistan is unchanging from administration to administration and transactional, as always,' Shuja Nawaz, a Washington-based political analyst and author of The Battle for Pakistan: The Bitter US Friendship and a Tough Neighbourhood, said on X. 'Pakistan needs to strengthen itself within its neighborhood to remain relevant and useful to its friends in both America and China. Nawaz emphasised that Pakistan's leadership, civilian and military, must draw lessons from history. 'A stronger polity and a strong economy. Otherwise, it will be at the mercy of its misalliances.' High‑wire act Pakistan's most pressing challenge continues to be its long-held policy of strategic non-alignment, often referred to as 'no-camp politics', as tensions in the Middle East refuse to die down. The recent flare-up between Israel, Iran and the US pushed Islamabad's ability to tread its careful middle path to the brink. Pakistan will count itself as lucky if the Israel-Iran ceasefire holds and the US chooses the negotiating table. Pakistan's position is made more precarious by internal vulnerabilities, including the rise of terrorism after the Taliban's recapture of Afghanistan in 2021, sectarian sensitivities, economic strain and political instability. Coupled with external pressures from competing global powers seeking regional footholds, Pakistan once again could find itself in the unenviable position it found itself during the US's global "war on terror". 'The concern is that there are no free lunches in Washington,' said the Pakistani security official, alluding to historical precedents. 'We've seen this before, becoming a frontline state against the Soviets in 1979, and again post-9/11 against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Each time, the cost to internal security and national cohesion was enormous.' Whether Pakistan can avoid being drawn into a new US-led security group or choose its own path focused on regional peace will be a key challenge for its diplomacy in the coming months. For now, Islamabad will continue to attempt its balancing act without a clear path forward.
Dubai Eye
2 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump rebukes Israel for post-ceasefire strikes
US President Donald Trump accused both Israel and Iran of violating a ceasefire on Tuesday hours after he announced it, expressing particular frustration with Israel which had announced major new strikes on Tehran. "Israel. Do not drop those bombs. If you do it it is a major violation. Bring your pilots home, now!" Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after he left the White House for a trip to a NATO summit in The Hague. Before boarding, he told reporters he was "not happy" with either side for violating the truce, particularly with Israel. "I've got to get Israel to calm down now," Trump said as he left the White House. "All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!," Trump said in a subsequent post on Truth Social. Earlier, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had said he had ordered the military to mount new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he said were Iranian missiles fired in a "blatant violation" of the ceasefire. Iran denied launching any missiles and said Israel's attacks had continued for an hour and a half beyond the time the ceasefire was meant to start. Despite the initial violations, in both countries, the wider Middle East and around the world there was palpable sense of relief that a path out of war had been charted, 12 days after Israel launched it with a surprise attack, and two days after Trump joined in with strikes on Iranian nuclear targets.
Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Powell repeats rate cuts can wait as Fed studies tariff impacts
Higher tariffs could begin raising inflation this summer, a period that will be key to Federal Reserve consideration of possible rate cuts, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told members of Congress on Tuesday. Pressed by Republican members of the House Financial Services committee about why the Fed isn't cutting rates, as President Donald Trump has demanded, Powell said he and many at the Fed expect inflation to start rising soon, and that the central bank was in no rush to ease borrowing costs in the meantime. Powell particularly said he would not open the door to a rate cut at the Fed's July meeting, as two of his colleagues recently suggested, or at any other session for that matter. "I do not want to point to a particular meeting. I don't think we need to be in any rush," given a still-strong labor market and so much uncertainty about the impact of the still-unresolved tariff debate, Powell said. Referring to expected tariff-driven price increases, Powell said "we should start to see this over the summer, in the June number and the July we don't we are perfectly open to the idea that the pass-through (to consumers) will be less than we think, and if we do that will matter for policy." 'I think if it turns out that inflation pressures remain contained we will get to a place where we cut rates sooner than later," he said. With the central bank largely sidelined waiting for the outcome of the Trump administration's tariff negotiations, Powell was quizzed repeatedly about why the central bank seemed preoccupied with that issue and isn't cutting rates given that inflation so far has been modest. Powell said that Fed policy isn't meant to endorse or criticize the Trump administration's approach to trade, only to deal with an inflation impact that the Fed and forecasts more broadly expect to gather momentum over the rest of the year. "We aren't commenting on tariffs," Powell said. "Our job is keeping inflation under control, and when policies have short- and medium-term, meaningful, implications, then inflation becomes our job." "All professional forecasters I know a meaningful increase in inflation over the course of this year," Powell said, elaborating on the Fed's reluctance to cut rates while major aspects of Trump's trade policy remain unresolved. Paring bets In prepared testimony to the House panel, Powell noted that those effects "could be short-lived, reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. It is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance." Following the release of Powell's testimony investors pared bets that the central bank might cut its policy interest rate as soon as the central bank's July meeting, and increased the perceived odds for a rate reduction in September, with another to follow later in the year. Powell's testimony, as is usually the case with his semiannual congressional appearances, largely tracks the central bank's most recent policy statement, approved last week. Fed officials voted unanimously at that meeting to hold the benchmark interest rate steady in the current 4.25% to 4.5% range, and gave no indication rate cuts were imminent. New economic projections released at the time showed officials at the median expect two quarter-point rate cuts by the end of the year, in line with current market pricing. In recent days two Fed governors, both Trump appointees, have said rates could fall as soon as the July meeting, given inflation has not yet risen in response to tariffs, while three reserve bank presidents said they still worry inflation will intensify over the rest of the year. Trump, who appointed Powell as chair in his first term but is expected to replace him when his term ends next spring, has repeatedly called for steep rate cuts. "We should be at least two to three points lower," he said in a social media post ahead of the hearing, adding in reference to Powell that he hoped "Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over."
