Saima Khan

The June 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran was not merely a military confrontation; it was an impeccably orchestrated spectacle of hypocrisy, delusion, and colonial overreach that spectacularly backfired. The unprovoked Israeli strike on Iran around June 13, 2025, launched under the familiar, threadbare pretexts of “regime change” and “eliminating Iran’s nuclear capability,” quickly devolved into a humiliating rout for the aggressor. Iran, it must be unequivocally stated, retaliated; it did not initiate this conflict. It was not an aggressor. The timing of this ill-fated adventure was hardly coincidental, unfolding just as Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s embattled Prime Minister, clung to power, having barely survived a vote of no-confidence on June 12, 2025, due to crucial defections from his coalition (Haaretz, Israel). Netanyahu did what colonial regimes do best: light another matchbox and hope the smoke covers the bloodstains. He reached for Tehran the way he reaches for Rafah — expecting silence, rubble, and a helpless enemy. But this time, he didn’t bomb a trapped population. He picked a fight with a sovereign state that hits back — hard. Netanyahu mistook Iran for Gaza. Iran reminded him it’s not.

The decision to launch this war was not a sudden, reactive measure but a premeditated offensive. Israeli military and security planners had, as early as February 2025, received the political green light to execute a preemptive strike (Times of Israel, Israel). This long-term planning for aggression, rather than a genuine defensive posture against an immediate threat, marked a clear intent to impose Israel’s will on Iran, whether through regime change or the forced dismantling of its nuclear program. Such a calculated initiation of large-scale conflict, irrespective of international law or regional stability, laid bare a consistent pattern of behaviour that extends beyond mere self-defence, revealing a deeper strategy of regional dominance.

Pre-War Media Narrative

Before the first missile flew, a carefully constructed narrative of impending doom was spun, particularly within Israeli and Western media circles. This psychological build-up was essential to justify an unprovoked attack and to garner domestic and international support for what became a disastrous military campaign.

Israeli media outlets, acting as willing conduits for the government’s agenda, relentlessly beat the war drums. Headlines and opinion pieces from platforms such as the Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post painted Iran as an immediate, existential threat that needed urgent, preemptive action. President Isaac Herzog, for instance, declared Israel’s strikes were to “neutralize an immediate, existential threat to our people” (Times of Israel, Israel). This narrative was further amplified by claims that “Israel was facing destruction at the hands of Iran,” asserting that Iran was “a few weeks away from nuclear weapons” and possessed an arsenal of “2,500 highly potent missiles” (Times of Israel, Israel). The Jerusalem Post echoed this manufactured hysteria, with calls to action like, “If we don’t stop Iran’s uranium pipeline now, the next bomb is only a trigger away” (Jerusalem Post, Israel).

This media ecosystem, as observed by Al Jazeera, consistently amplified war rhetoric while conveniently ignoring the immense suffering inflicted by Israeli forces in Gaza, effectively manufacturing consent for the government’s actions (Al Jazeera, Israel). The constant invocation of a “narrative of victimhood” served to justify any military aggression, regardless of its true intent or consequences (Al Jazeera, Israel).

The alarmist rhetoric found fertile ground in Western media, which often mirrored Israeli talking points, creating an international climate conducive to military action against Iran. CNN reported that IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated the agency “cannot certify Iran’s nuclear program as peaceful due to a lack of cooperation” and that Iran “continues enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels” (CNN, US). Similarly, a UK government statement, published by GOV.UK, expressed concerns that “Iran’s nuclear programme has been far beyond any credible civilian justification, including an enriched uranium stockpile 40 times the limit set by the JCPoA” (GOV.UK, UK). Further fueling the sense of urgency, IranWatch.org, cited by The Times (UK), detailed Iran’s theoretical ability to “quickly enrich uranium for five fission weapons within about one week and enough for eight weapons in less than two weeks” (The Times, UK).

The most glaring indictment of this manufactured narrative was the stark contradiction presented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself. Just days before the conflict erupted, Tehran Times reported on June 7, 2025, that Iran had reiterated the “peaceful nature of nuclear program in response to IAEA report,” explicitly stating that the “IAEA’s latest assessment contains no credible evidence pointing to any military dimension of the country’s nuclear program” (Tehran Times, Iran). Mehr News Agency corroborated this, reporting on the same date that the “IAEA report attests to peaceful nature of Iran atomic program,” noting “the absence of any evidence of diversion towards military objectives” (Mehr News Agency, Iran). The Jerusalem Post also noted that the UN atomic agency pulled its inspectors out of Iran over safety concerns, citing the IAEA’s emphasis on resuming monitoring activities (Jerusalem Post, Israel).

The glaring disparity between the alarmist media narrative and the more objective findings of the international watchdog exposed a deliberate manipulation of information. The “lack of cooperation” cited by some Western outlets was selectively emphasized to justify aggression, while the consistent “absence of evidence of military diversion” was conveniently ignored. This was not merely a contradiction; it was a deliberate weaponization of intelligence and information. The media, in this instance, functioned as an echo chamber, manufacturing consent by selectively presenting information to create a sense of urgency and fear, even when direct evidence for an imminent threat was lacking from credible, neutral bodies. This strategy effectively created a casus belli out of perceived, rather than proven, threats.

The pre-war media landscape also revealed a systemic approach to regional destabilization, extending beyond mere territorial expansion to a broader pattern of colonial overreach. The war on Iran was inextricably linked to Israel’s ongoing actions in Gaza and Lebanon. Reports of Israel arming and funding “criminal gangs in the Gaza Strip” to “sow chaos and lawlessness” (Middle East Eye, UK), coupled with the disregard for suffering in Gaza (Al Jazeera, Israel) and the documented “scorched earth policy” in Lebanon that displaced over 1.2 million people (Al Mayadeen, Lebanon), demonstrated a consistent strategy. Israel appeared to create instability and then present itself as the arbiter of order or the victim of the very chaos it foments. The war on Iran, therefore, was an extension of this colonial logic, an attempt to impose its will on another sovereign nation under the guise of security, further illustrating how the “existential threat” narrative is a versatile tool deployed against any entity challenging its regional dominance. The US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities were in stark violation of NPT and the UNSC Resolution 2231 that endorsed Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme in 2015 by consensus.

12-Day War Coverage

The conflict, dubbed the “Twelve Days of Delusion” by many, quickly exposed the fragility of Israel’s self-proclaimed military superiority and the profound misjudgment of its leadership.

The war commenced with Israeli strikes and air aggression, confidently launched against what was presumed to be a vulnerable Iran. The United States, ever the steadfast patron, immediately shifted military assets around the Middle East, with Fox News reporting on increased US military presence and asset repositioning (Fox News, US). This overt backing demonstrated the collaborative nature of the aggression. IranWatch.org confirmed that “Between June 12 and 24, Israel carried out a campaign of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program,” with the United States also striking multiple Iranian nuclear sites on June 21 (The Times, UK).

However, the initial bravado quickly met with an unexpected reality. Iran’s air defence systems, far from being overwhelmed, immediately engaged the incoming threats. PressTV later lauded Iran’s response, declaring that “Iran’s missile might nullified Iron Dome” and highlighting that Iran “delivered a strong response to an unprovoked act of aggression” (PressTV, Iran). Iranian officials, setting a defiant tone, asserted, “We have never initiated war, but we have always determined how it ends, and Iran has always emerged victorious” (PressTV, Iran). This early, disciplined response signaled that this would not be another one-sided affair replicating the Gaza formula.

As the conflict progressed, Iran escalated its defensive response with devastating precision, shattering the illusion of Israeli invincibility. Iran unleashed “drone swarms, ballistic responses,” launching “over 500 ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles in 22 operational waves” (PressTV, Iran). These were not indiscriminate attacks; key Israeli bases were hit, and the “inability of Israel’s advanced defence systems to intercept Iranian hypersonic missiles… undermined the regime’s military prestige” (PressTV, Iran). The Iron Dome couldn’t stop memes, let alone missiles.

The scale of Iranian retaliation became evident with reports of precision strikes on critical infrastructure. Mehr News detailed the catastrophic damage inflicted upon the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, a “military scientific hub,” on June 15, 2025 (Mehr News, Iran). This strike, described as “far from accidental,” targeted cutting-edge research facilities, including a newly constructed chemistry and material science laboratory that suffered “catastrophic damage.” Professor Eldad Tzahor’s cardiac regeneration lab was “completely demolished,” resulting in the “loss of decades’ worth of biological samples and research data” (Mehr News, Iran). Overall, “around 90 percent of the institute’s buildings sustained some form of damage,” with physical damages estimated between $300 million and $570 million (Mehr News, Iran).

Signs of panic began to emerge within Israel’s military and civilian populations. Reports indicated that Israeli’s commercial planes were moved to Cyprus and Greece, a desperate attempt to shield valuable assets from Iran’s relentless barrages (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias, The National Herald). Civilian shelters, once a symbol of security, began to overflow, with Al Jazeera reporting “bunkers packed” and “stairwells have become makeshift bedrooms” (Al Jazeera, Qatar). The Jerusalem Post confirmed that “most residents are slumbering on mattresses in the shelter each night” (Jerusalem Post, Israel). For many Israelis, this was the first time they were “confronted with destruction in their home cities” (Al Jazeera, Qatar), shattering a long-held sense of security.

In the final days of the conflict, Iran demonstrated not only its conventional military prowess but also sophisticated cyber and intelligence capabilities. Reports from CISA indicated that “Iranian Cyber Actors May Target Vulnerable US Networks and Entities of Interest,” specifically noting that “Defence Industrial Base companies, particularly those possessing holdings or relationships with Israeli research and defence firms, are at increased risk” (CISA, US). This provided the backdrop for Iran’s reported capabilities in capturing Israeli drone feeds and hacking CCTV systems (Industrial Cyber, US; The Record from Recorded Future News, US; Hindustan Times Videos, India), turning Israel’s own surveillance against it.

As battlefield failures mounted, Israel resorted to a desperate cover-up. A “social media blackout” was implemented to hide the true extent of the damage and casualties. Al Jazeera reported that by the third night of the conflict, “multiple reports were published of people being arrested for documenting the attacks while Israeli officials warned foreign media against breaking a ban on broadcasting such content, describing it as a security offence” (Al Jazeera, Qatar). Mehr News also noted Israeli “censorship of images showing the extent of damage” (Mehr News, Iran). This attempt to control the narrative, however, proved futile in the face of widespread destruction and a globalized information environment. Israel wanted a regime change. It ended up changing its own press narrative — from arrogance to agony.

In stark contrast, Arab media outlets like Al Jazeera and Al Mayadeen provided unfiltered reports of the destruction Israel refused to acknowledge, openly mocking the collapse of the long-held Israeli “invincibility myth” (Al Jazeera, Qatar; PeoplesWorld.org, US). Al Jazeera highlighted how “many Israelis are being confronted with destruction in their home cities for the first time” (Al Jazeera, Qatar), a profound shift for a society accustomed to inflicting, rather than experiencing, widespread devastation.

The unfolding events laid bare the erosion of Israeli deterrence and the shattering of its military reputation. The “invincibility myth,” long cultivated and eagerly repeated in Western media, was built not on consistent battlefield prowess but on surprise attacks against weaker foes (PeoplesWorld.org, US). Iran’s ability to nullify the Iron Dome (PressTV, Iran) and inflict significant damage on strategic targets like the Weizmann Institute (Mehr News, Iran) fundamentally altered the regional power balance. The panic in civilian shelters (Al Jazeera, Qatar; Jerusalem Post, Israel) and the desperate need for censorship (Al Jazeera, Qatar; Mehr News, Iran) were clear symptoms of a state grappling with a fundamental shift in its security paradigm. This defeat irrevocably shattered the foundation of Israel’s perceived strength.

Post-War Narrative

The ceasefire, declared after twelve days of relentless Iranian retaliation, was not a negotiated de-escalation but a capitulation forced upon Israel and its American patrons. The post-war narrative, particularly in the West, struggled to mask the profound embarrassment and strategic failure.

In the immediate aftermath of the humiliating defeat, Israel’s political establishment quickly turned on its beleaguered Prime Minister. Opposition voices, including Lapid and Gantz, swiftly “criticize the miscalculated war” (Al Jazeera, Israel), a predictable outcome given Netanyahu’s precarious political standing prior to the conflict (Haaretz, Israel; Times of Israel, Israel). Leaks to the Times of Israel revealed details of “Trump’s intervention and calls for ceasefire” (Newsweek, US), underscoring Israel’s desperate reliance on external powers to halt the Iranian response.

Crucially, Iranian state media, IRNA, reported that “Israel was reportedly begging Iran to stop its response for ceasefire but Iran refused to stop mid-defence” (IRNA, Iran). Iran’s Supreme National Security Council explicitly “declared that its forces had forced Israel to ‘unilaterally accept defeat’ and agree to the ceasefire” (IRNA, Iran). This narrative directly contradicted any notion of a mutually agreed-upon de-escalation, portraying Israel as having been cornered and forced to capitulate.

Despite their earlier complicity in amplifying the war drums, Western media outlets attempted to salvage the narrative by framing the ceasefire as a “de-escalation” and a “return to diplomacy.” The UK government, for example, welcomed President Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire, emphasizing the need for a “return to diplomacy” (GOV.UK, UK). PBS NewsHour reported that the “fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran appeared to be holding,” with Trump claiming Iran was “not going to have a bomb and they’re not going to enrich” (PBS NewsHour, US).

However, the underlying reality was far less flattering for the aggressors. CNN had previously reported that US strikes “did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months” (CNN, US), an assessment Trump “scoffed” at (PBS NewsHour, US) but which was corroborated by other intelligence reports (Newsweek, US). This stark disconnect between official spin and the limited military outcome highlighted the desperation to control the narrative. Iranian officials, far from accepting the Western framing, openly called Donald Trump’s ceasefire declaration an “admission of failure” (IRNA, Iran), directly challenging the “de-escalation” spin.

In stark contrast to the Western spin, Arab media celebrated Iran’s victory and openly mocked the collapse of the long-held Israeli “invincibility myth.” Al Jazeera and PeoplesWorld.org explicitly discussed “The illusion of Israeli military invincibility,” noting how it was “eagerly repeated in Western media” but was fundamentally built on “surprise attacks against weaker foes” (PeoplesWorld.org, US; Al Jazeera, Qatar). The analysis emphasized that “When the tide of war turns, Israel either retreats or gets bogged down and battered. Now, facing a far stronger adversary in Iran, it is waging a war it cannot win” (PeoplesWorld.org, US).

Iranian media, particularly IRNA, amplified the narrative of victory, reporting that “People of Hamedan, western Iran, praised Iran’s Armed Forces for their successful ‘Operation Harbinger of Conquest'” (IRNA, Iran). This solidified the perception of Iranian triumph and the shattering of Israel’s regional dominance.

Aftermath & Geopolitical Fallout

The “Twelve Days of Delusion” concluded with Iran emerging as the unequivocal victor, not merely in military terms but morally and strategically. The war goals of Israel and the United States—regime change in Tehran and the rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities—were not just unmet; they boomeranged spectacularly. The aftermath brought nothing to Israel or the U.S. except profound humiliation and significant geopolitical loss. There was no strategic gain, no restoration of deterrence, and certainly no moral high ground—only fear and the bitter taste of failure.

The most devastating consequence for the aggressors was Iran’s immediate and resolute strategic shift. Iran’s Parliament, in a direct response to the unprovoked aggression, declared its intention to move toward developing nuclear weapons, abandoning its long-held restraint (Tasnim News, Iran; Newsweek, US). As Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association had warned, such attacks “will change the calculations in Iran about whether to pursue nuclear weapons” (Arms Control Association, US). This outcome, far from preventing proliferation, has instead accelerated it and fundamentally undermined the global non-proliferation regime. By attacking a non-nuclear state, nuclear-armed states inadvertently sent a clear message: conventional defences are insufficient against a determined aggressor, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. This creates a dangerous precedent, encouraging other nations to pursue nuclear capabilities for self-preservation, leading to a more unstable and weaponized world.

Beyond its nuclear ambitions, Iran also significantly consolidated its conventional military capabilities. Reports confirmed that Iran has ordered J-10C multirole fighters from China and secured solid-fuel components for over 800 ballistic missiles (EurAsian Times, China; Army Recognition, Belgium). This military upgrade further solidifies Iran’s regional power and reinforces the counterproductive nature of the war.

The conflict delivered a grim, undeniable lesson to smaller nations worldwide: in a geopolitical landscape dominated by nuclear powers and aggressive actors, if you do not possess nuclear weapons, you risk being bombed by bullies (Arms Control Association, US). This stark reality exposes a catastrophic failure of international security policy, demonstrating how short-sighted, aggressive actions can have profound, long-term, and destabilizing ripple effects far beyond the immediate conflict zone, potentially ushering in a new era of nuclear arms race.

Finally, the war exposed the Israel-U.S. strategic nexus as impotent in the face of real deterrence. The perceived strength and influence of this alliance proved insufficient to project power or achieve objectives against a truly resilient adversary. The “Twelve Days of Delusion” did not just rewrite the rules for the Middle East; it provided a stark illustration of the evolving global order, where regional powers, when sufficiently determined and strategically equipped, can defy and even defeat established hegemons, accelerating the decline of a U.S.-centric world order. This could lead to new alliances, revised security doctrines, and a more complex, less predictable international system.

In this new era of post India-Pakistan War and Israel-US-Iran War, it’s not the self-declared ‘superpowers’ setting the rules—it’s the ones who survive their tantrums. The old empire playbook is burning, and from its ashes, a new geopolitical ecosystem is emerging—one where fading hegemons crash on impact, and unexpected powers rise from the crater they left behind.

Israel wanted to rewrite the rules of the Middle East. Instead, it rewrote the rules of survival—and Tehran now holds the pen.

The author is a security analyst.