The Iran-Israel war, which began on June 13 with an Israeli attack and was labeled the “12 Day War” by U.S. President Donald Trump, appears to have ended following a cease-fire declared by Trump. Although the cease-fire was repeatedly violated by both sides in its early hours, current statements from both parties suggest that, for now, they do not intend to resume hostilities.
Nonetheless, there are strong reasons to believe that this 12-day war has opened a Pandora’s box, and that Israel will now seek to wage a prolonged war of attrition against Iran in various forms and intensities. In this regard, efforts to problematize Iran’s nuclear program are ongoing.
Israel’s efforts to draw the U.S. into a war with Iran partially succeeded with the recent U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear sites. Still, the attack did not go far enough to meet Israel’s expectations, as it seeks a more aggressive and sustained U.S. engagement against Iran. In contrast, the U.S. appears to view the strike as a limited operation, one that fulfills its immediate goals and signals a desire to step back from further involvement. Comments from U.S. officials following the strike support this interpretation.
In the early hours of June 22, the U.S. launched an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using B-2 Spirit stealth bombers that took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. The operation, codenamed “Midnight Hammer,” was followed by a statement from Trump claiming that they had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated at a press conference: “We devastated the Iranian nuclear program.” He also emphasized that the conflict with Iran is neither open-ended nor intended to overthrow the Iranian government, clarifying that the military strikes on Saturday were solely aimed at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
These statements from the White House suggest that the strike against Iran was not part of a broader regime-change agenda, but rather a one-off, limited operation strictly targeting and eliminating Iran’s nuclear capability. Therefore, it can be said that there is no longer a need for continued U.S. military engagement against Iran. In other words, with Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump effectively bought himself a quiet exit from the war. However, the Israel Lobby has already begun mobilizing to tear up that exit ticket.
Indeed, following this attack, Iran launched a retaliatory strike against the U.S. base in Qatar, which caused no injuries or casualties among American soldiers, thanks in part to Iran notifying the U.S. in advance, a gesture for which Trump even expressed appreciation. This provided Iran with an honorable exit strategy, prompting Trump to declare a cease-fire. Nevertheless, war hawks remain determined not to let the matter rest.
According to a Pentagon intelligence assessment leaked to CNN, Iran’s nuclear capability was not destroyed, but the strikes merely delayed Iran’s potential weapons-related activities by a few months. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt strongly objected to the leaked report, stating: “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
This internal conflict within the U.S. administration is, in fact, a reflection of a deeper rift: Trump, who has never wanted to be part of a war with Iran, versus the Israel Lobby, which is pushing to make the U.S. a central player in such a conflict. From the beginning, Trump resisted being dragged into war, but under pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, he could not entirely avoid involvement. Now, by claiming that Iran’s nuclear facilities have been destroyed, he argues that the war should be brought to an end and is attempting to finalize this stance through a cease-fire.
Before departing for the NATO summit, Trump openly voiced his frustration with Israel’s heavy strikes just before the cease-fire was to take effect. Speaking to reporters, he said: “I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either, but I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.” Trump’s words made his irritation with Israel unmistakably clear.
Although the Trump administration insisted on bringing the war with Iran to an end, the events that unfolded over the course of 12 days revealed important findings about Iran’s military and political capacity – findings that Israel is likely to exploit in the coming period. In a sense, this war became an experience in which Israel subjected Iran to a harsh test.
The latest Iran-Israel war has revealed both the vulnerabilities and strengths of Iran to the Israel-U.S. military alliance, and more importantly, to the Zionist Lobby. The collapse of Iran’s air defense system, the targeted assassinations of key commanders, and the disruption of its political-military decision-making mechanisms stand out as Iran’s major weaknesses. There is little doubt that Israel will try to continue these attacks whenever it finds the opportunity. It appears poised to gradually push Iran toward the status of a “failed state.” Normalizing and routinizing violations of Iranian airspace and national sovereignty is part of this broader strategy, a process already underway since Oct. 7.
Iran’s responses to Israel’s violations, meanwhile, appear far from deterrent. Although Iran’s ballistic missiles inflicted significant damage, it is widely acknowledged that a security strategy based solely on missile capabilities is inherently limited. This situation has, without a doubt, also created an opportunity for Iran to reassess its military and political posture and make critical strategic decisions. One likely outcome is that Iran will pursue new developments in its weakest area, which is air defense, potentially through agreements with countries like China.
The issue of nuclear weapons is also expected to become a topic of renewed debate within Iran. Tehran may use such internal discussions to foster a posture of “strategic ambiguity.” The question of where the nuclear materials were relocated from the three nuclear facilities before the U.S. attack has been taken, and what Iran is doing with its enriched uranium stockpiles, will raise significant questions. This ambiguity could serve Iran as a bargaining chip against the West, but at the same time, it may provide Israel with further justification for future military strikes. In other words, this 12-day war could mark the beginning of a prolonged war of attrition against Iran.
