The 12-day conflict is over: What is next for Iran?
- Oral Toğa
- Jul 28
- 6 min read
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a wide-ranging air operation across Iran, targeting not just nuclear facilities but also internal control mechanisms and strategic infrastructure. This multi-front assault aimed to disable the regime’s ability to govern and respond, laying the ground for broader instability. It would be a mistake to evaluate this 12-day episode in isolation. Israel and the U.S. have been laying the groundwork for these attacks, stone by stone, since 2018. The killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (including the method by which he was killed), and the tightening of economic sanctions are all steps along that path. Trying to suppress the octopus’s head while disabling its arms and then finally launching a direct strike on the head is not the product of a single year’s planning.
Was the attack a surprise?
Israel used the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks to escalate its campaign against Iran’s proxy forces. While advancing against Hamas, striking Hezbollah, and targeting the Houthis, Israel steadily shifted its focus toward Iran. These developments made it clear that Iran was the ultimate target. Following the suspicious death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Tehran began reinforcing its internal front. The return of previously sidelined political figures, sudden government flexibility, and intensified air defense drills signaled that Iranian leadership anticipated serious threats. Around the time Israel began striking Hezbollah, Israeli media cited military sources reporting that operational plans against Iran were ready. A hybrid model had reportedly been developed, similar to the one used in Lebanon, combining sabotage, assassinations and airstrikes.
Two key developments helped obscure all this military activity on the ground. The first was the U.S. presidential election cycle. From former U.S. President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race to the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump, international media became so consumed with U.S. politics that few questioned the long-term strategic goals behind Israel’s actions. Coverage of the clashes remained focused on immediate developments. Yet Israeli political elites, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, repeatedly stated what their ultimate goal was.
The second factor that obscured the trajectory of events was Trump’s highly unconventional approach to the presidency. The tone of his public statements and the style he adopted in meetings with world leaders in the White House drew more attention than the underlying substance of events. In reality, however, the U.S. had been amassing military power in the Middle East since the early months of 2025.
Around the same time, Israel’s newly appointed chief of General Staff, Eyal Zamir, stated in his very first remarks that “2025 will be a year of war against Gaza and Iran.” Meanwhile, Israeli media outlets and international think tank reports openly discussed Iranian retaliation scenarios in the event of an Israeli strike.
CENTCOM Commander Michael Kurilla paid repeated visits to Tel Aviv, reportedly due to “urgent” matters. Notably, on April 24, after visiting Tel Aviv for the second time in one month to discuss Iran, a massive explosion occurred in Bandar Abbas just two days later. Over the following month, a series of sabotage incidents took place – exactly as had been predicted in Israeli media during the previous autumn. On the Iranian side, a string of military drills was held. The country sought to bolster its air defenses, and senior officials carried out inspections across various units and institutions.
Yet while all this was unfolding, the global public remained largely unaware of the activity on the ground. There was little discussion of the strategic objectives underlying the events. Instead, attention was focused solely on ongoing negotiations with Iran and Trump's constantly shifting rhetoric. Only a few voices raised the possibility that the entire process might be part of a larger strategy of deception.
Behind the curtain
Just before the clashes began, Iran publicly announced that it had achieved an intelligence breakthrough against Israel. This "success" was most likely a product of strategic deception, specifically a controlled leakage operation orchestrated by Israeli intelligence. In the days leading up to the conflict, senior IRGC commanders repeatedly issued bold and defiant statements, insisting that Iran's air defense systems were strong and any enemy would face devastating consequences.
Yet, as Iran was reportedly preparing a new proposal for negotiations, the Israeli operation suddenly began. In a single night, many key figures, including members of the command echelon, were assassinated. This development closely mirrored what had been published in Israeli media and think tank briefings: the start of the second phase of attacks, focused on targeted killings. It appeared that the strategy of deception had worked.
Throughout Operation Rising Lion, the public discourse was overwhelmingly centered on nuclear targets. These were, of course, among Israel’s core objectives. But their prominence also served to obscure other priorities, effectively acting as another layer of strategic masking. In truth, some of the most consequential developments during this period were the destruction of missile launch platforms and the strikes carried out in pursuit of internal political engineering inside Iran.
Over 12 days, Israel systematically targeted Iran’s internal security architecture. It struck critical infrastructure intended to amplify social pressure and weaken Iran’s ability to respond to future attacks. However, the prevailing narrative remained centered on nuclear facilities, leaving other dimensions of the operation largely unexamined. While nuclear capabilities suffered, they were not entirely eliminated. In fact, the attacks may have intensified Iran’s resolve to pursue nuclear weapons. Israel’s operation could ultimately prove a strategic miscalculation. Damaging facilities or killing scientists does not guarantee long-term deterrence or regime destabilization.
Is this a real cease-fire?
It is no secret that the ultimate aim of Operation Rising Lion was to bring about regime change in Iran. The core objective for Israel, and perhaps for the U.S. as well, was not to dismantle individual threats like proxy forces, missile capacity or the nuclear program one by one. Instead, they sought to strike at the foundation on which all of these threats had been built and to eliminate the system itself.
But none of these goals was fully achieved during the 12 days of conflict. Without eliminating the ideological framework of the Islamic Republic, it is impossible to end Iran’s proxy activity in the region. As long as the regime exists, it will continue to support its proxies financially and ideologically. As for the nuclear program, as noted earlier, airstrikes and assassinations alone are unlikely to completely halt its progress. The same holds true for Iran’s missile capabilities. While all of these capacities have suffered serious damage, it would be difficult to claim that they have been entirely neutralized.
So why did Donald Trump, who just days earlier had been calling for regime change, suddenly change his tone, express dissatisfaction with Israel, and begin to “pressure” for a cease-fire? The U.S., which had launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and deployed dozens (if not hundreds) of aircraft to the region, now positioned itself as a mediator. Trump presented himself as a peace-seeking leader, calling for de-escalation immediately after the strikes. This allowed him to preempt mounting criticism from both the American public and the international community.
In response to Iran’s retaliatory strikes, Trump claimed that “they warned us beforehand,” effectively neutralizing any psychological impact. By adopting a posture of “reprimanding” Israel, he sought to convince the world that he truly wished to end the war. After all, the image of a “warmongering president” would directly contradict Trump’s campaign promises. At the same time, however, it would be inaccurate to suggest that his words were inconsistent with his prior statements about Israel’s security and Iran
What likely happened in reality was the deliberate implementation of a tempo disruption strategy, designed to deny the initiative to the opposing side. For the first time, some Iranian missiles that had previously been seen only in exercises were launched and tested in actual combat. This gave adversaries valuable data on these systems, allowing them to evaluate Iran’s true capabilities and reconfigure their own positions accordingly.
All of this took place, moreover, within what may have been a broader deception-in-depth strategy. The real target here is the Islamic Republic of Iran itself, and such a target can only be paralyzed by the full force of American airpower. But for that to happen, it must be swift and decisive. Not only has the U.S. not withdrawn a single aircraft from the region, but it has also significantly reinforced its military presence around Iran. Still, it remains critical that this posture not appear overtly aggressive and that any operation be executed quickly and without escalation.
In that sense, Israel's 12-day assault may be seen as a preparatory move designed to pave the way for a larger, more decisive strike. With U.S. forces still heavily deployed in the area, it is premature to speak of a true cease-fire. Since the cease-fire was declared, almost daily attacks on Iranian targets have continued.
In summary, nothing that occurred over these 12 days happened overnight. Every development was the culmination of a long-standing conflict and a step-by-step strategy that had been unfolding for years. To assume that the conflict has now come to an end would be naive. We may not see Israeli warplanes over Iranian skies with the same intensity for a while. However, it is clear that Israel has not closed this chapter. And when we consider that the U.S. has not acted as a neutral mediator but rather as a direct participant in the recent strikes, it becomes apparent that the current silence is not the product of peace, but rather a tactical pause serving strategic purposes. In other words, what we are witnessing now is not the calm of peace, but the silence before a greater storm.
This article was first published in Daily Sabah newspaper on 08.07.2025
Comments