For the third consecutive day, the military confrontation between Iran and Israel has intensified. Israel continues its targeted strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military facilities and scientists, while Iran endeavors to restore strategic balance through retaliatory attacks aimed at Israeli infrastructure and military sites. Both sides appear to be engaged in a strategic effort to impose greater costs on their adversary, seeking to compel concessions or retreat. Despite regional and international calls for de-escalation and the cessation of hostilities, there remains no viable political settlement in sight at this juncture. This report aims to shed light on the ongoing escalation, analyze the reciprocal attacks, assess their implications and evaluate their impact on the broader trajectory of the war.
Dynamics of the Military Conflict and the Objectives of the Parties
By the third day, extending into the early hours of the fourth, the intensity of violent escalation between the two sides — namely, Israel’s Rising Lion and Iran’s True Promise operations — heightened significantly. The intensity of strikes has increased markedly, signaling a clear escalation within what is known as a “struggle of wills,” characterized by reciprocal attacks and objectives — each side seeking to impose its dominance through a cycle of attack and counterattack. This unprecedented escalation threatens to drag the region into its most severe military confrontation in decades, opening the door to highly complex and perilous scenarios, notably:
Iranian Attacks and Targets
On-the-ground developments reveal a pronounced Iranian focus on targeting civilian infrastructure since the escalation began. During the third day, Iran launched five powerful and unexpected military attacks under True Promise 3. According to Israeli sources, five waves of attacks were carried out using ballistic missiles and approximately 100 drones:
-In the initial two waves, approximately 80 rockets were fired toward Tel Aviv at the onset of the third night, followed by a third wave consisting of about 70 rockets in mid-afternoon of the same day — marking the first daytime assaults.
At 10 a.m. on the third day, a fourth wave targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa with over 30 rockets, causing extensive damage.
The fifth wave, launched at dawn on June 16, involved approximately 100 ballistic and hypersonic missiles, with even greater destructive power and unprecedented speed compared to previous rounds.
Israeli officials have described this series of strikes as devastating and unprecedented, comparing the scenes to catastrophic war zones unseen since Israel’s founding. International media outlets have widely circulated images of these attacks. In total, Iran has conducted 11 attacks, deploying approximately 370 ballistic and hypersonic missiles alongside 200 drones, according to Israeli sources.
Table 1: Weapons and Targets: Third Night Extending to Fourth Day of Conflict (June 15- June 16, 2025)
| Weapon Type | Model | Specifications and Capabilities |
| Ballistic Missiles | Kheibar Shekan | A ballistic missile traveling at Mach 9 — nine times the speed of sound — with a 500 kilogram warhead, capable of covering a distance of over 1,450 kilometers. |
| Ghadr | A ballistic missile capable of traveling greater distances, reaching up to approximately 1,900 kilometers, has been developed, allowing Iran to launch missiles from farther inland than Israel had anticipated. | |
| Imad | Named after Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah leader assassinated by Israel years ago. It is a medium-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile, capable of reaching speeds of Mach 11, armed with a 750 kilogram warhead, and distinguished by its maneuverability. | |
| Drones | Arash | It is one of the most prominent drones used against Israel; it is known as a stealth aircraft. It resembles a dive bomber or suicide aircraft. It can fly for approximately 2,000 kilometers and ascend to 12,000 feet, enabling it to evade air defense systems and hit its targets. It can carry up to 150 kilograms of explosives. |
| Shahed 129 | An advanced tactical drone with an endurance of up to 24 hours and a range of approximately 1,700 kilometers, a range that allows it to reach deep into Israel without refueling. The drone carries four guided missiles. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has used this model in several theaters, including Syria, Iraq and Yemen, to strike US positions and strategic targets. | |
| Shahed 136 | The Shahed 136 is a suicidal, explosive-laden drone equipped with a warhead weighing between 20 kilograms and 50 kilograms. It is a low-cost drone that allows for mass deployment, making it difficult for air defense systems to intercept all units simultaneously. The drone flies at low altitude and at a slow speed, which complicates its detection — especially when used in large numbers and coordinated to strike simultaneously. |
Regarding Objectives, the targets included several civilian and military areas as follows:
-Iranian attacks in the recent round targeted Israeli shelters in Petah Tikva, leading Israelis to claim that these shelters are no longer safe.
-Attacks on the homes of Israeli leaders in various locations in Tel Aviv.
-Destruction of numerous civilian homes and sites, along with extensive infrastructure in Haifa — prompting widespread talk about the burning of Haifa, Israel’s economic and strategic capital.
-Multiple raids on the oil refineries in Haifa, as well as on the Port of Haifa — the largest commercial port in Israel.
-Targeting of Ben Gurion Airport.
-Complete destruction of a residential block in the coastal town of Beit Yam south of Tel Aviv, reducing it to rubble; social media pages compared the scale of destruction in that area to Israel’s bombing of entire residential blocks in Gaza.
-Shelling of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, one of Israel’s most important scientific institutions, which has played a significant role in the development of nuclear technologies and research.
-Strikes on energy facilities and jet fuel production sites within Israel.
-Attacks on the power station in Hadera and on the residence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Qasarea.
-Civilian citizens seeking shelter in various Israeli cities.
Military Targets
According to Iranian sources, these involved:
Mossad intelligence centers; apparently in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Intelligence Chief Mohammad Kazemi in Israeli strikes.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
Casualties Reported
-By the third day, until dawn on the fourth, Israeli media reported approximately 18 deaths and 355 injuries, with total casualties rising to 21 killed and 450 wounded, including 287 in the latest wave of strikes — some critically injured — by 10 am on the fourth day. However, due to Israel’s policy of secrecy, these figures may not be entirely accurate.
-Around 35 individuals are believed to be trapped under the rubble, with additional missing persons reported in successive rounds, according to Israeli sources. The relatively low number of missing persons is attributed to many civilians seeking refuge in shelters.
Israeli Attacks and Targets
Since the escalation began, Israel has primarily focused on Iranian military sites. On the third day, Israel intensified its strikes against various Iranian locations using advanced aircraft, notably the F-35, as well as Hermes and Eitan drones. Notably, these strikes aimed to achieve two main objectives:
-Attack ballistic missile launch pads and missile manufacturing facilities, thereby crippling Iran’s missile capabilities – Iran’s most prominent weapon in this conflict — while intensifying strikes on nuclear sites.
-Target civilian sites and infrastructure, sending a message to Iran that Israel can focus on civilians and civilian infrastructure as well.
Following these Israeli strikes across various Iranian regions, the Israeli military announced on the third morning that it had targeted over 80 Iranian sites, including the Iranian Ministry of Defense, the nuclear project headquarters and locations where Iran was reportedly hiding nuclear archives. Since the beginning of the escalation, more than 170 targets and over 720 Iranian military infrastructures related to the nuclear program have been targeted. The following discussion details the aforesaid attacks as well as casualty figures and the ongoing targeting of military and security sites:
First-time Targeting of Civilian Sites
-Striking oil facilities: an oil facility in Isfahan, the Tabriz refinery, and the South Pars gas field — the largest in the world—in Iran. This marks the first time Israel has targeted Iran’s oil sector, which has caused oil prices to rise again, increasing by 7% during the initial days of escalation.
–Bombing of the Val Asr Commercial and Industrial Zone, a hub of significant popular activity.
-Attacks on the Energy Institute, Iran’s energy research heart.
Causalities Reported
-According to official Iranian sources, at least 93 people were killed or wounded during the third day. The total human losses over the past two days are estimated at a minimum of 863 individuals.
-The death of IRGC Intelligence Chief General Mohammad Kazemi and two of his colleagues.
Continued Strikes on Military and Security Targets
-Targeting of Mashhad Airport.
–Loud explosions heard across Tehran, with flames rising alarmingly, indicating possible targeting of sensitive sites; Iran’s Defense Minister commented that Tehran was burning.
–Strikes on armed missile launch platforms and ground-to-ground missile sites aimed at Israeli territories, as well as missile defense radars in northern Iran, to hinder Iran’s missile attacks against Israel.
–Attacks on military bases, missile launch sites, and drone facilities in western Iran, including the Ministry of Defense facilities in Shiraz and Isfahan.Bombing police headquarters, including the police command in Tehran.
-Wide-scale attacks on civilian areas in Tehran, Kermanshah, Tabriz, and Mashhad.
Continued Targeting of Nuclear Sites
-Strikes on Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities.
–Confirmed destruction of the Isfahan reactor by Netanyahu.
-Bombing of the Bushehr reactor and the nuclear project headquarters, along with storage facilities for fuel plates.
Participation of Other Parties in the Conflict
Israel appears to be employing a policy of provoking and drawing in regional actors into the conflict with Iran, seemingly aiming to involve the United States. Israeli forces targeted senior Houthi officials, including the group’s leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, in an attempted assassination in Yemen, and there are reports of the death of Houthi military chief Mohamed al-Amari. However, the Houthis seem aware of Israeli intentions, and thus have not responded. This situation increases the cost for Netanyahu due to Iran’s strong retaliatory strikes. The Iraqi Kata’ib Hezbollah has also announced conditions for engaging in the ongoing escalation, centered around US involvement —specifically, targeting American interests in Iraq and elsewhere once the United States intervenes.
Table 2: Attacks and Targets Overview: Night of Day Three to Morning of Day Four (June 15- June 16, 2025)
| Parties | Location | Target Type | Objective |
| Israel | South Pars Gas Refinery | Economic infrastructure | Internally, it aims to reduce gas flows, especially to homes, given that the majority of domestic gas production is directed toward domestic consumption. Externally, it aims to spread anxiety in energy markets and attempt to increase pressure on Iran. |
| Targeting oil depots in Shahran and southern Tehran. Fuel reservoirs in Tehran. | Economic infrastructure | Impacting domestic fuel supplies, increasing domestic pressure and exacerbating the domestic electricity shortage crisis, given that Iran already had a shortage of electricity production before the strikes began. | |
| Mashhad Airport | Economic infrastructure | Spreading panic and negatively impacting Iranian trade, tourism, and the economy. | |
| Railway stations | Economic infrastructure | Aimed at targeting transportation infrastructure to disrupt domestic stability and amplify internal pressure on the Iranian government. | |
| Military and Defense Ministry facilities in Nobonyad and Pasdaran, missile storage and launch sites, IRGC bases, and radar centers | Military infrastructure | Limiting Iran’s ability to counter attacks and destroying its missile infrastructure | |
| Residential sites, factories and civil facilities in several cities, including: Tehran, Alborz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Fars, Alborz and Khorasan Razavi | Civilian infrastructure | Raising the human cost of conflict and swaying domestic public opinion | |
| Several nuclear facilities, including those in Natanz and Fordow, as well as the Isfahan and Bushehr reactors, were targeted and struck. Additionally, fuel plate manufacturing warehouses, the Energy Institute, and the command headquarters overseeing the nuclear project were also hit. | Nuclear facilities | Eliminating the nuclear infrastructure and disrupting the Iranian nuclear program | |
| Police stations | Government apparatuses | Disrupting internal security | |
| Iran | Energy facilities in Haifa, Israel | Economic infrastructure | Targeting the energy infrastructure in Haifa, Israel’s key economic hub, which hosts a major port and plays a vital role in international trade and tourism. It also houses the country’s primary oil refineries, underscoring its strategic importance. |
| Power station in Haifa | Economic infrastructure | Targeting energy infrastructure in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Iranian energy facilities, with potential repercussions on Israeli trade, tourism, and internal security. | |
| Haifa Port and Ben Gurion Airport | Economic infrastructure | Targeting Israel’s main trade infrastructure by concentrating strikes on the country’s most important airport and main port. | |
| Israeli shelters in Petah Tikva | Civilian infrastructure | Coercing the Israeli government and triggering public discontent. | |
| Targeting the homes of Israeli leaders in various areas of Tel Aviv | Civilian/military infrastructure | Response to the targeting of Iranian leaders | |
| Widespread destruction of homes, civilian facilities, and critical infrastructure across Haifa. | Civilian infrastructure | Pressure on the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s government | |
| Bombing of the Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovot | Nuclear | Targeting key infrastructure and major centers, while simultaneously conducting strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. | |
| Fighter jet fuel production facilities | Military | Limiting air attacks on Iran |
The Political Reverberations of the War Within Iran and Israel
The contours of the political stance can be analyzed alongside the military conflict between the two sides as follows:
Domestic Trends and Reactions in Iran
The IRGC dominates the military landscape in Iran. In this context, the IRGC announced the launch of missile salvos and drone attacks on Israel as part of what it called Operation True Promise 3, emphasizing that offensive operations would intensify and broaden if Israeli actions on Iranian territory persisted.
On the political front, Iranian officials’ statements indicate a stance of restraint. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for example, stated that Iran does not seek to escalate the war but will respond if necessary. Additionally, the Strategic Council for Foreign Relations issued a statement asserting Iran’s “right and duty” to deliver a “severe response” to what it called the “Zionist entity’s aggression.”
In search of an exit, Iran reportedly asked Cyprus to relay “some messages” to Israel, according to the office of President Nicos Christodoulides, who added that he had spoken with Netanyahu on Sunday, as well as with leaders of Egypt, the UAE and Greece. Later, Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied sending any messages to Israel via third parties.
On the internal front, former President Mohammad Khatami issued a statement supporting the Iranian establishment against “Zionist attacks,” stating, “The terrorist Zionist entity, whose wickedness and crimes against humanity and its killing of people, especially over the past two years, surpass all historical criminals, carried out another terrorist act which led to the martyrdom of prominent military leaders and scientific and social figures in Iran. Additionally, it killed civilians, including women and children.” He called on all countries seeking “peace and human happiness” to firmly condemn Israel. In the same vein, dissident Zakhar Ziba, aligned with the opposition, criticized those Iranians who support Israel: “I don’t understand how an Iranian can stand alongside the aggressor, namely Israel and America, while our homeland is under attack.”
Nevertheless, the war is exerting a heavy toll on Iran’s interior, especially after Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned that “the residents of Tehran will pay the price soon.” This has led to severe traffic congestion in the Iranian capital, especially at the northern exits toward the Caspian Sea, as reported by Iranian news agencies, along with more panic due to strikes on energy refineries in multiple cities. Several scenes documented long lines of cars in Tehran’s streets, fleeing Israeli bombardments — particularly after Israel vowed to carry out more strikes following Iranian attacks that targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa at dawn, resulting in 8 deaths and over 85 injuries.
Developments in the Israeli Position and the Impact of Attacks on Israeli Society
Israeli statements have been characterized by threatening tones, indicating plans for further operations and warning Iran that it will have to pay a heavy price for the killing of civilians in Israel. Officials hinted that the conflict could escalate into a new phase, possibly targeting senior leaders such as Khamenei himself. In this context, the Israeli Defense Forces have also warned Iranian personnel present in weapons manufacturing sites and living nearby to “not return until further notice.”
Israel relies heavily on US involvement to achieve its ultimate goal related to Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter said “For Fordow to be taken out by a bomb from the sky, the only country in the world that has that bomb is the United States.”
On the internal front, there was a consensus among Israeli political leaders regarding the strike deep into Iran. Opposition figures, notably Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister, declared on social media that “Israel is saving the world from a nuclear Iran.” Opposition leader Yair Lapid also expressed support for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to strike Iran, despite political disagreements.
Despite broad societal backing for Netanyahu’s government in its confrontation with Iran — along with support from major Jewish opposition parties — voices of dissent have begun to emerge, warning against prolonging the conflict and calling for efforts to end it rather than seeking US involvement. Among these is former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who has held senior military and security positions, including defense and foreign minister.
Moreover, some problems have been reported regarding civil preparedness. Israeli newspaper Yisrael Hayom cited internal assessments indicating that approximately 40% of Tel Aviv residents live in buildings lacking shelters compliant with standards. Tens of thousands of older structures in the capital are unprotected, and both Tel Aviv and Haifa suffer from a severe shortage of reinforced rooms amid intense Iranian attacks. Witnesses in the capital have reported a lack of shelters, with neighbors closing their bunker doors amid overcrowding. Arab communities within the Green Line also face inadequate readiness for missile barrages, due to neglect—either in the lack of sufficient shelters or disparities in Israeli air defense systems, which treat Arab towns as open areas outside protective coverage. Arab citizens also reportedly neglect instructions from civil defense authorities.
Positions and Orientations of Regional and International Powers
The reverberations of the Iran-Israel conflict resound across global and regional capitals. The most significant positions are as follows:
Regional Actors
-The Gulf states: Several Gulf states reiterated their firm condemnation of any aggression by either party, emphasizing the importance of activating mediation channels and diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation into a broader confrontation.
-Türkiye: Ankara has pursued an active diplomatic approach amid the Israeli-Iranian escalation. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held phone calls with Syrian and Omani leaders. A Turkish Foreign Ministry source told Reuters that Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan informed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that the only solution to the concerning conflict is diplomacy.
International Actors
– United States: Washington has adopted a balanced stance — President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that any attack on US interests would trigger unprecedented military responses, while also denying direct responsibility for recent strikes. Supportive of Israel, the US maintains diplomatic options, with Trump expressing hope that Tehran and Tel Aviv might reach an agreement soon. Reports from Reuters suggest that Trump recently blocked an Israeli proposal to target Khamenei.
– China: No new official statements emerged today, but several news outlets reported — pending verification — that China has supplied military aid to Iran.
– Russia: Moscow continues to warn of the risks of a full-scale escalation. On June 15, Moscow issued a statement expressing deep concern about the potential slide into a comprehensive war, describing the attacks as unacceptable and urging both sides to adhere to international law. Russia has also offered direct mediation, with President Vladimir Putin conducting phone calls on June 14-15 with Netanyahu and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and later with Trump, expressing readiness to facilitate effective mediation — particularly on Iran’s nuclear issue — through diplomacy.
– European Countries: Amid rising regional tensions, Germany’s position on the third day of escalation attempted to revive diplomatic channels. The German Foreign Minister announced readiness, along with France and the UK, to hold immediate negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The German Foreign Minister also stressed that de-escalation depends on Iran not posing a threat to the region, Israel, or Europe—indicating a near consensus among the E3 (Germany, France, UK) for a re-engagement role, moving away from unilateral US dominance in the Iranian nuclear matter and regional stability.
The Course of the Conflict, Escalation Trends and Future Impacts
As a result of analyzing recent developments, several key points emerge:
Israeli Determination to Escalate and Involve Washington
Israel seeks to intensify strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program — aiming to disable it entirely or at least prolong its incapacitation. However, it appears unable to achieve this alone without US intervention. Currently, the United States seems reluctant to engage directly in the conflict, possibly to avoid provoking Iranian attacks on US interests. This US hesitation is partly due to the ability of Iraqi armed groups to attack US interests and bases in the region if Washington attacks Iran.
Iran’s Strategy to Balance Escalation and De-escalation
As Israel escalates its military operations, Iran has managed to regain its ability to respond and partially restore its image — both of which had suffered during the initial phase of the war, when Israeli casualties were significant. By the third day of the conflict, new options emerged and the ability to influence the trajectory of conflict has become more evident, as the two parties endured substantial human and material losses. However, Iran appears more resilient in absorbing these costs, in part because Israeli society has not faced such sustained pressure or casualties in recent history. Despite this, Iran has left the door open to diplomacy and has signaled a willingness to engage in mediation or dialogue aimed at ending the conflict.
“Leverage in Play” — Axis Factions Ready to Engage
There is no question that the intense strikes launched on June 16, 2025, targeting Tel Aviv and Haifa are the most severe and destructive since the onset of the conflict. Most notably, these attacks involved missiles directed at Tel Aviv and Haifa for the first time, challenging Israel’s air defense systems and exposing technical vulnerabilities that emerged due to sustained operations. Despite the severe setbacks suffered by the Iran-backed “Axis of Resistance,” it will probably engage in the conflict at any moment. Consequently, Israel has redeployed divisions from Gaza to its northern borders, driven by concerns over Hezbollah’s potential involvement from the Syrian front. Such a redeployment would not have occurred without intelligence or clear indications of possible activity on the northern front in support of Iran.
Complex Calculations Facing Iran
Strategically, Iran may soon deplete its reserves of ballistic and hypersonic missiles as it continues high-tempo launches in the near term. Israel, by contrast, could face growing challenges in sustaining the interception of these large-scale missile barrages should they persist over time. Airspace control will likely prove decisive in the evolving conflict, given Iran’s limited air defense capabilities and Israel’s technological and military superiority. Nevertheless, Iran has demonstrated a capacity to recalibrate the strategic equation by executing effective strikes on Israeli territory, inflicting both material damage and casualties. Despite these successes, Israel retains a significant advantage, having largely secured air superiority and successfully intercepted a substantial portion of Iran’s missile assaults.
Expanding Attacks on Infrastructure
In recent days, both sides have escalated strikes on infrastructure — Israel focusing on military and economic targets to sway domestic opinion and potentially reshape Iran’s political future. This aligns with what some view as Israel’s strategic endgame: regime change in Tehran. While the prospect of Iran undergoing political transformation as a direct consequence of this conflict remains remote, the Iranian leadership is actively leveraging the war to reinforce its legitimacy following years of internal crises, notably the 2009 Green Movement and the widespread protests after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022.
The ruling establishment seeks to reframe the conflict in nationalistic and civilizational terms, presenting itself as a bulwark against “global imperialism” and portraying Israel as an existential adversary. By doing so, it aims to strengthen its position within the Iranian public consciousness, asserting that the confrontation is less about its nuclear ambitions or government policy and more about defending Persian identity and sovereignty.
Concurrently, Iran has launched targeted strikes on Israeli infrastructure, aiming to influence Israeli public opinion and potentially incite internal dissent. However, Iran’s military limitations — particularly in airpower and missile precision — suggest that it lacks a definitive strategic objective in this conflict.
Exploiting the War to Bolster Legitimacy and Rehabilitate the Image of the Ruling System
The defense of the “Iranian state,” including its rhetoric, is likely to intensify among cultural elites — even those aligned with or sympathetic to the opposition — as Israeli attacks escalate or expand. Rising nationalist sentiment tends to unify religious “hardliners” and extreme nationalists. It can also be argued that expectations of a popular uprising or an internal challenge from Iran’s cultural and revolutionary elite — often cited by Israeli and Western officials as a possible pathway to regime change — are unrealistic under current conditions. The likelihood of overthrowing the ruling religious establishment through a “revolution” or “coup” remains low, based on available data.
No Prospects for Mediation and Diplomacy
Iran appears to be the weaker party in this conflict, yet it shows little willingness to accept external conditions or to use the war as leverage to return to diplomatic negotiations. Israel, on the other hand, seems to view this as a long-awaited opportunity to neutralize the perceived threat from Iran, capitalizing on its military superiority and extensive regional alliances. However, despite inflicting significant casualties, Israel has not achieved this objective. The international community and great powers also appear unable to halt the conflict in Gaza, which has persisted for nearly two years. As a result, neither side seems likely to alter the trajectory of the current war unless one manages to fulfill a key strategic objective.
Conclusion: Continuing Escalation and Limited Diplomatic Horizon
The Iran-Israel confrontation has reached an unprecedented level of escalation, reflecting significant geopolitical shifts in the region. Based on recent events (June 15- June 16), it appears that the near-term outlook is dominated by mutual strikes, targeting strategic and civilian sites, with no clear path toward peace or ceasefire. The conflict risks spiraling further, potentially destabilizing the region, risking nuclear proliferation or expanding into multiple fronts.
While there remains a chance for a diplomatic breakthrough — likely to emerge through regional or international initiatives driven by growing concerns over the war’s potential domino effect — two critical questions remain: What price will be paid to reach such a settlement? And who will bear its costs?
