The 12-day war between Israel and Iran began on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched a surprise attack on key Iranian military and nuclear facilities. This marked a dramatic escalation in tensions with both. Israel and Iran exchanged missiles, and drone strikes over two weeks before a ceasefire was brokered on June 24th. It's been described as one of the most intense and fast-moving conflicts in the region in recent years.

President Donald Trump ordered the US military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22nd, 2025. The operation is known as Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three key sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The strikes were carried out using B2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, aiming to cripple Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities.

Trump announced the operation in a televised address that evening, calling it a spectacular military success and warning Iran against retaliation. The move marked a major escalation in the conflict that had begun just days earlier between Israel and Iran.

Ceasefires, Summits, and Strikes

The current global landscape is marked by profound geopolitical tensions, particularly evident in the volatile Middle East and the strategic Indo-Pacific. Recent events, including a contentious ceasefire between Iran and Israel, a symbolic missile strike on a U.S. base, and a critical NATO summit, underscore the delicate balance of power and the intricate web of international relations. These incidents collectively paint a picture of a world grappling with long-standing conflicts, emerging threats, and the complexities of diplomatic intervention.

The Fragile Iran-Israel Ceasefire: A Diplomatic Tightrope Walk

The declared ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been anything but straightforward, marked by confusion, anger, and conflicting narratives. U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally announced the ceasefire around 10:00 AM New Zealand time, imposing a six-hour deadline for hostilities to cease. However, the declaration was met with immediate confusion, primarily because for several hours, neither Iran nor Israel confirmed the truce. This led to a surreal juxtaposition: President Trump proclaimed "peace forever" on social media, while air raid sirens continued to blare in Israel and explosions rocked Tehran.

President Trump's initial reaction to the perceived breach of the ceasefire was one of palpable fury. He expressed exasperation, stating, "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the ***** they're doing. Do you understand that?" This anger stemmed from the continued fighting past his announced deadline.

Both sides offered contradictory accounts of the ceasefire's violation. Israel claimed it fired missiles hours before the deadline, only for Iran to retaliate just before the truce, destroying an apartment complex and killing four people. In response, Israel targeted an Iranian installation in Tehran after the deadline. Iran, conversely, asserted it only fired missiles before the deadline, in retaliation for earlier Israeli strikes. The lack of coordinated messaging between the White House and the warring nations, especially regarding such a critical ceasefire, highlighted a significant breakdown in communication.

Despite the tumultuous start, President Trump later adopted a calmer tone, posting that both nations "wanted to STOP THE WAR equally," and that it was his "great honor to destroy all nuclear facilities and capability and then in an instant stop the war." Analysts, however, viewed his earlier angry remarks as unhelpful, undermining the narrative of blamelessness necessary for maintaining peace.

The NATO Summit Amidst Heightened Global Tensions

Against the backdrop of Middle Eastern volatility, world leaders convened in The Hague, Netherlands, for a crucial NATO summit. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance of 32 countries, served as a platform for discussions on global security. New Zealand, though not a NATO member, participated as a partner, underscoring its commitment to security conversations, particularly concerning the Indo-Pacific region and the perceived threats from China. The timing of the summit was critical, occurring when global tensions were reportedly at their highest since World War Two, encompassing conflicts in the Middle East, Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and the aforementioned security risks in the Indo-Pacific.

A stark warning was issued about the long-term ambitions of Russia and China, with one expert stating that within "3-5-7 years from now, Russia will be able to successfully attack us if we do not start investing more today." Both nations have explicitly stated their desire to supplant the U.S.-dominated order established after World War Two. The summit itself was notably abridged, with a mere two-and-a-half-hour team meeting, reportedly at the insistence of NATO Chief Mark Rutte, who aimed to keep the United States engaged. A key point of discussion was President Trump's consistent push for member countries to commit 5% of their national income to military spending, a commitment that was reportedly secured ahead of the summit. While New Zealand, as a non-member, does not share this direct commitment, it nonetheless faces pressure in the current security environment. The success of this NATO summit, according to defense experts, would be measured by its ability to adhere to its schedule and avoid any significant disruptions or changes instigated by President Trump.

The Qatar Base Attack: A Symbolic Act of Retaliation

Further illustrating the regional volatility, Iranian state television aired footage of missiles striking what it alleged was America's air base in Qatar, Al Udeid, home to 10,000 U.S. troops and the largest American base in the Middle East. The dramatic scenes showed residents running in panic and others filming in wonder as missiles were intercepted. Qatari officials expressed fury, condemning the attack as a "flagrant violation of the nation's sovereignty."

This attack fulfilled Iran's vow of revenge for earlier American strikes on its nuclear facilities. Many observers viewed the strike as more symbolic than incendiary, a sentiment echoed by an Iranian resident who stated, "As they feel humiliated. They feel that they have, you know, to respond to shows that they are still in power." Celebrations erupted in the streets of Tehran, with chants of "We will die, but we will never accept humiliation. And we stand our ground here. We are not afraid of bombings, missiles. Or anything else."

Crucially, it was reported that Iran provided a warning to both Qatar and the U.S. before the attack. The minimal damage and lack of casualties from the strike provided an unexpected opening for President Trump, allowing him to help broker and then declare an "unlimited" ceasefire between Iran and Israel. He optimistically framed the "12-day war" as an "important reset moment for the entire region." However, this proclamation of peace often stood in stark contrast to the reality on the ground, with Iranian TV broadcasting footage of Tehran's "most intense night yet" and Israeli sirens signaling continued missile attacks even after the supposed ceasefire deadline. The human cost remained high, with Iran reporting approximately 500 casualties and Israel nearly 30, underscoring the extreme fragility of the truce.

International Response

The international response to President Trump's June 22, 2025, strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was a whirlwind of support, condemnation, and urgent calls for de-escalation. Some supportive voices came from close allies.

·        Israel held the strike as a righteous act that removed a major existential threat.

·        Australia backed the US move, emphasizing the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while preparing evacuation plans for citizens in the region.

·        The UK called Iran's nuclear program a grave threat and said the US action was justified, though it did not participate directly.

·        Germany acknowledged the damage inflicted and urged Iran to return to negotiations.

Cautious or critical reactions came from others.

·        France warned military action alone wouldn't solve the crisis and push for renewed diplomacy.

·        The European Union and Japan echoed calls for restraint and a return to talks.

·        Saudi Arabia and Qatar expressed concern about escalation but stopped short of condemning the strike.

·        Iran unsurprisingly condemned the attack as a criminal act and vowed retaliation, with leaders warning of irreparable consequences.

Global institutions also weighed in.

·        The UN secretary general expressed grave alarm, warning of a spiral of chaos and urging all parties to pursue diplomacy over force.

·        The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stressed the need for inspectors to return to the damaged sites and emphasize that Iran’s technical knowledge remains intact.

The world is now watching closely to see whether this strike leads to a new diplomatic chapter or a deeper descent into conflict.

 Conclusion

The convergence of a tumultuous ceasefire, a critical NATO summit, and a retaliatory missile strike paints a vivid picture of a world navigating complex and interconnected geopolitical challenges. President Trump's direct, albeit at times erratic, involvement in Middle Eastern diplomacy highlights the singular influence of the United States. Meanwhile, the NATO summit reaffirms the enduring importance of alliances in addressing global security threats.

SidLinx Comment

Read my previous article titled “War.” I have no reason to alter my view on why groups of people and nations go to war. The world is better off without war but not all of humanity see it that way. Human nature and a myriad of differences between individuals and nations almost preclude peace as a long-term outcome.