Who won the 12-day war between Iran and Israel? To answer that, one must first examine the objectives of all parties involved in the conflict. Israel publicly stated that its main goal was to degrade or eradicate Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. Before launching direct attacks, the hardline Israeli government claimed that Tehran was only weeks away from achieving nuclear capability. This, it insisted, justified its preemptive strikes.
The US initially maintained distance. When Israel, on June 13, launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinated senior military leaders and top nuclear scientists of Iran, the Trump administration said it was a unilateral Israeli action. Interestingly, just three months earlier, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had assessed there was no indication Iran was close to making a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, publicly dismissed the assessment.
Despite Israel's claims of initial success, it continued to press for the US involvement. It wanted the US to deploy B-2 bombers capable of dropping bunker-busting bombs needed to destroy deeply buried facilities like Fordow, located hundreds of metres beneath the mountains near the historic city of Qom. For over 45 years, no American president took the bait, even while maintaining close ties with Israel.
The reason was simple: any direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities risked triggering a full-scale regional war. But Trump, who often brands himself a man of peace, broke with the precedent. He ordered direct strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. The US B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bombs in an attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Trump swiftly claimed victory, announcing that Iran's nuclear capability had been "totally obliterated". However, a leaked report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contradicted this, revealing that the strikes caused only limited damage and had set back Iran's programme by just a few months. Trump dismissed the report as a deliberate attempt to undermine his administration's success. Reports later confirmed that there was no radiation leak from any of the bombed sites, indicating that Iran might have moved its enriched uranium and sensitive materials to safe locations before the attacks.
While Iran continued to retaliate against Israel with its limited resources, the direct US involvement escalated the stakes. Until then, Iran had avoided targeting American military bases in the Gulf. But after the strikes, Tehran altered its approach. It had promised retaliation and the obvious targets were the US bases in the neighborhood.
When Iran launched missiles at a major US base in Qatar, fears surged that the world was entering uncharted territory. However, it soon became clear that the strike was a choreographed move and coordinated in advance with both Qatar and the US. It was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire. Tehran needed a symbolic response to show its people it had avenged the strikes. Trump even thanked Iran for the advance notice. All the missiles were intercepted over Doha, resulting in no casualties or damage.
Hours later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal. Although there were initial violations from both sides, the US president publicly rebuked Tel Aviv, ensuring the truce was held. In Trump's own words, Iran had fought "bravely" and Israel was hit "very very hard". This meant Israel needed a breather. Iran too, under immense pressure, could not afford to prolong the conflict.
Israel's ultimate goal of regime change in Tehran did not materialise. Iran, despite heavy losses, survived to fight another day. For decades, Israel and Iran had avoided direct confrontation. That precedent is now broken. The real danger going forward is that such exchanges may become the new normal.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ