In a recent series of events following U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran issued warnings to both Washington and Qatar before retaliating. Rather than taking aggressive measures to disrupt global oil supplies or targeting additional U.S. bases, Iran demonstrated a desire for de-escalation through its actions and statements.
In a statement that was perceived as exaggerated, Iranian officials claimed that their response involved launching a total number of missiles equivalent to the bombs used by the United States in its initial attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites.
In a meeting with his national security team, President Donald Trump characterized Iran’s response as ‘very weak.’ He expressed gratitude for the advanced notice provided by Iran, which he stated allowed U.S. forces to avoid casualties. Furthermore, President Trump hinted at a potential pathway toward peace, asserting, ‘Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region. And I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.’
Contrary to President Trump’s remarks, the Israeli response did not suggest a similar inclination towards peace. Following the strikes, smoke filled the skies above Tehran as Israel executed what it deemed its most extensive airstrike campaign against the city. Targets included significant symbols of Iran’s theocratic governance. Notably, an airstrike struck the notorious Evin prison in Northern Tehran, where numerous political detainees are held.
Israel claimed responsibility for attacking the headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Tehran and the Basij, a paramilitary force known for suppressing dissent.
Israeli military analysts accompanied these strikes with the assertion that the message was directed at the Iranian populace, encouraging those dissatisfied with their government to express their grievances freely.
As reports continued to unfold, President Trump announced a proposed cease-fire lasting 24 hours, which would be initiated at midnight Eastern time. Following this, he indicated that there would be a 12-hour cease-fire from both Iran and Israel. In Trump’s view, this arrangement would effectively conclude what he referred to as the ’12-day war.’
At the time of reporting, Israeli officials had not confirmed the details of this cease-fire agreement, but it appeared to follow a plan accepted by both the U.S. and Iranian authorities. In a social media post, President Trump expressed optimism about the situation, stating, ‘This could have gone on for years, but didn’t.’
In assessing the implications of what might be termed the ’12-day war,’ some analysts posited that Israel would have secured a significant reduction in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The uniqueness of this situation lies in the substantial U.S. involvement in using advanced weaponry that Israel cannot deploy. Among these was a 30,000-pound bomb, dropped by a B-2 bomber, targeting key facilities like the Fordow enrichment site and Natanz, which are critical to Iran’s nuclear program.
These attacks marked an operational capacity that Israel lacked, creating a considerable setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In a subsequent interview, Trump claimed that Iran had become ‘incapable’ of manufacturing nuclear weapons due to the destruction of its essential equipment, stating that it had been ‘obliterated.’ However, there remains a debate regarding the accuracy of this assertion.
Currently, U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran’s centrifuges, which are vital for enriching uranium, have either become inaccessible or damaged beyond repair. This amounts to a significant loss for Iran, particularly as Trump asserted that its stockpile of 60-percent enriched uranium was ‘buried.’ This point underscores the challenge for Iran if it attempted to pursue nuclear armament with its remaining resources.
In light of this, Vance, a U.S. official, reiterated the notion that the destruction inflicted upon Iranian nuclear capabilities provides a new opening for diplomatic negotiations. The possibility of peace seems achievable, contingent on both sides’ willingness to move forward.
Previously, the dialogue surrounding Iran’s nuclear program had run into a deadlock, with the U.S. advocating for Iran to abandon its domestic enrichment in favor of a collaborative regional consortium for sourcing nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, Iran maintained its insistence on a right to enrich domestically. This impasse remained even after the latest round of attacks.
As officials consider the potential for negotiations amid the current cessation of hostilities, the historical context of the past two weeks invokes memories of the unresolved tensions that preceded this conflict. Although a window for diplomatic engagement may now exist, the fundamental disagreements that previously stalled negotiations are yet to be resolved.
The unfolding situation continues to develop as the international community watches closely, with hopes pinned on a possible turning point towards peace and stability in the region.
image source from：pbs
