In late June 2025, the world was stunned by an abrupt announcement of a “complete and total ceasefire” between arch-rivals Israel and Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump took credit for brokering a phased truce that would take effect gradually over 24 hours starting Tuesday morning. In his social media posts, he described a “12-day war” winding down. He declared that Israel and Iran had simultaneously agreed to stand down. Qatar reportedly mediated the deal at Washington’s behest, and Mr. Trump had phoned the Emir of Qatar to enlist his help in persuading Tehran. A senior Iranian official later confirmed (via Reuters) that Iran had agreed to the U.S.-proposed ceasefire after Doha’s intervention. But within minutes of the announcement, confusion and recriminations erupted. Israel’s military issued evacuation warnings for parts of Tehran, and blasts were reported in the Iranian capital. Israel’s defense minister announced he would strike Tehran in response to reported missiles fired by Iran in “violation of the ceasefire.” Mr. Trump immediately responded on social media, begging the Israelis to “Do not drop those bombs!” and Prime Minister Netanyahu hastily told his military to stand down. The rapid back-and-forth underscored how fragile the truce already was.
Since June 13, the Israeli air force had pounded targets deep inside Iran, notably nuclear sites and military bases, to halt Tehran’s nuclear program. Those strikes killed scores of high-ranking Iranian commanders and technicians. Iran responded with waves of ballistic missiles and drones. Some Iranian drones penetrated northern Israel, triggering air-raid sirens; most were intercepted, but one hit a home in Beit She’an over the weekend. Iran then launched missiles at Israel’s main gas fields, landing debris in residential areas. In the days that followed, each side’s missiles rained in turn. Iranian strikes on Israeli cities killed dozens. Officials now acknowledge at least 28 dead and hundreds wounded, and Israel’s retaliatory bombardment of Iran was far more deadly. A Tehran-based watchdog reported that Israeli raids had so far killed around 974 people inside Iran, including scores of civilians. Iranian sources put the toll lower (over 600 dead). Still, there is no doubt the human cost was heavy and growing. Front-line hospitals in Iran were often forced to operate on backup generators after their power infrastructure was damaged. Refugee flows and hospital queues grew in border regions as families fled border towns.
At least four Israeli civilians died when an Iranian ballistic missile smashed into an apartment block in the city of Beersheba on the morning of June 24. Emergency workers sifted through the rubble of a destroyed building in southern Israel, recovering bodies and rescuing survivors as firefighters sprayed foam to prevent fires. Images of first responders in hard hats working amid ruined concrete and twisted rebar became a grim symbol of the conflict’s toll. Beersheba (in the Negev desert) was one of several towns struck by 14 Iranian missiles that day, according to Iranian reports. Israeli air defenses scrambled to meet the onslaught; rockets streaked upward in anti-missile barrages, shooting down most of the threat.
By dawn on June 24, Israeli air defense batteries had already intercepted dozens of Iranian rockets. (The photograph above captures the glowing contrails of an Iranian missile being engaged over the West Bank.) Israel’s interceptors prevented a far higher death toll. Iranian officials tallied that their strikes on Israeli soil injured over a thousand people while killing 28, a number that would have been far greater without the interceptions. Indeed, the alacrity of Israel’s missile defense response shows just how hard both sides had hit each other before the truce. One analyst noted wryly that both nations “unloaded right after” the proposed ceasefire was announced, launching what U.S. officials bluntly called “a big strike” in the final moments. In Tehran, one massive Israeli missile barrage even shattered a large surveillance tower and damaged other central infrastructure, a testament to Israel’s intent to maximize pressure up to the wire.
Israeli leaders presented the truce as a victory. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel had “achieved the goals it had set” with its campaign, destroying major components of Iran’s nuclear program and missile arsenal, and was ready for a bilateral ceasefire. In a statement published by the prime minister’s office he thanked President Trump and the U.S. for “their participation in eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.” Israeli ministers pointed out that with nuclear sites incapacitated, Iran was left significantly weaker. Vice President J.D. Vance echoed that sentiment on American TV: “The end of the 12-day war [marks] the end of the Iranian nuclear program, and… the beginning of something big for peace in the Middle East,” he said confidently. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opponents in Israel were less giddy. Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, seized on the moment to renew calls for a Gaza ceasefire: “This is the moment… To bring back the hostages, to end the war. Israel needs to start rebuilding,” he wrote. Part of Netanyahu’s coalition has been pressing to press the military advantage in Iran and Gaza simultaneously, so some longed to see Israel exploit the ceasefire window to advance on other fronts.
Iranian officials gave equally triumphant public spins on their side. Tehran’s Supreme National Security Council declared that its armed forces had “forced the enemy to accept defeat and accept a ceasefire unilaterally.” The statement was combative, warning that Iranian troops would “keep their hands on the trigger” and deliver “a decisive and regrettable response to any act of aggression by the enemy.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, was more circumspect in his official pronouncements, he emphasized that no formal ceasefire agreement had yet been signed. “As of now, there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations,” he posted online but added that Iran would halt its strikes if (and only if) Israel stopped its operations by the agreed time. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, had earlier bluntly warned the world that “Iran will not surrender.” In Tehran, domestic reactions ranged from jubilant cheers at having withstood the bombing to cautious preparation for renewed fighting, hospitals braced for more wounded. Activists warned that the war’s disruption of food, fuel, and medicine supplies posed a “grave threat” to children across the country. (UNICEF had warned two weeks earlier that the escalation of hostilities endangered millions of Iranian children, though that statement had not been widely publicized.)
Meanwhile, in Washington, the Trump administration touted the ceasefire as a triumph of its strategy. Officials said that Trump had spoken at length with both Mr. Netanyahu and Qatar’s emir to finalize the deal. Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had quietly coordinated with Gulf partners. At the same time, a U.S. military attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21 was credited with strengthening the bargaining position. Overtly, U.S. politicians were split. Some Republicans hailed Trump’s brokering of peace as a historic achievement. Indeed, South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace declared on X that “the world is safer” because of it. Other Americans, however, reacted with alarm. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pointedly noted that a sitting U.S. president had admitted to inserting America into a foreign war without Congress’s approval, calling it “a very grave public admission” that posed a constitutional problem. But broadly speaking, U.S. global allies greeted the news with cautious optimism. Even Russia and China, longstanding backers of Iran, publicly welcomed the cessation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he “welcomed” any ceasefire and hoped it would last. However, he cautioned that it was too early to be certain. China’s Foreign Ministry praised Iran’s willingness to safeguard its security and urged all sides to resume negotiations to secure “a real ceasefire.”
In the region, responses were equally mixed but generally hopeful. Qatar’s emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, said he “welcomes” the ceasefire but cautioned against violations, noting that the morning’s skirmishes had already shown how fragile the deal might be. The Gulf kingdom of Saudi Arabia, previously lukewarm toward Trump’s policies, issued a guarded statement of approval, saying it “welcomes” the formula and urging calm. Egypt and Jordan both publicly hailed the pause in fighting as a necessary step to prevent wider war. Jordan’s foreign ministry spokesman stressed that tensions must be reduced and called for the Gaza war to end as well. In Lebanon, Prime Minister Najib Mikati expressed relief that Hezbollah, which had come under Israeli fire in Syria, had not been drawn directly into the confrontation. Even the European Union chimed in: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the pause was “an important step towards restoring stability in a region in tension,” and High Representative Josep Borrell echoed that the situation remained fragile. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned bluntly, “All further escalation must be avoided,” and reminded all parties that a genuine peace would require diplomatic dialogue.
On the ground, the ceasefire produced an almost instant economic and humanitarian ripple effect. With the guns (temporarily) silent, regional airspace gradually reopened, and flights resumed in Qatar, Iraq, Oman, the UAE, and even Syria by midweek. Gulf carriers said they were working through a backlog of thousands of stranded passengers. Oil markets breathed a sigh of relief as prices fell roughly 3 percent with the news, and global stocks rallied on the prospect of lower geopolitical risk. However, at the same time, humanitarian aid agencies warned that the accumulated trauma of 12 days of war would linger. In Israel, authorities had to shelter schools and ambulances against possible drone or missile attacks for days; communities in Beersheba and elsewhere counted the psychological and physical damage. In Iran, millions live in buildings now twisted or shattered, and cutting-edge hospitals have been targeted. One aid report noted that the strikes partially destroyed at least seven major medical facilities in Iran, and the deaths of Red Crescent medics underscored the dangers facing civilians (including children) in war. Electricity and water disruptions in some regions sent prices soaring in local markets. Human rights groups decried the toll of civilian deaths; dozens of infants and elderly had perished when shelters failed and homes collapsed. An Iranian children’s rights activist, echoing UNICEF’s prior warning, pleaded for the ceasefire to hold “before more innocent lives are lost” (though reliable statistics on child casualties are not yet available, the destruction of schools and playgrounds is evident).
The policy question now is how long this ceasefire can last. On one hand, both governments have signaled that they have achieved key war aims and may have incentives to pause. Israel declared it had neutralized Iran’s immediate threats and its public gratitude to the U.S. underscores how reliant it is on Washington’s continued support. Iran, with its nuclear facilities battered and its usual proxy network partly shaken by recent events, may see a temporary cessation as an opportunity to regroup and reassert influence later. A respected analyst with the Carnegie Endowment observes that “the vast imbalance in military power… heavily favors Israel over Iran,” suggesting Tehran is on the back foot for now. Iranian officials have hinted they plan to rebuild their nuclear program swiftly, warning that any threat would be met with force (the “hands on the trigger” comment signals this intent). On the other hand, mutual mistrust runs deep. Israel has said it will regard any missile launch after 4 a.m. (Tehran time) as a breach of Iran’s promise, and Iranian military spokesmen have already denied launching anything past the deadline. This sets up a potential game of “he said, she said” over when exactly each attack occurred. Any dispute over timing could collapse the fragile deal.
Another key factor is that the United States and Qatar heavily support the truce, but they have no formal international guarantor. Unlike many past ceasefires, there is no UN mandate or peacekeepers on the ground; compliance depends on everyone’s good faith. Mr. Trump’s role as the self-proclaimed mediator introduces both strengths and weaknesses. He has leverage (he threatened regime change if Iran didn’t fall in line), and America’s military might stand behind him. However, his credibility and willingness to enforce the ceasefire if things go wrong will be closely watched. (Notably, even some supporters in Congress worry aloud that he acted without legal authorization to wage war on Iran). If Trump or his administration leans toward one side, that could strain the agreement. For example, America recently struck Iranian nuclear sites in solidarity with Israel; many Iranians suspect Washington is using Israel as a proxy, and Tehran will watch Washington’s next steps warily.
On the regional stage, there are also unanswered questions. Syrian President Assad’s regime watched the conflict warily; Israeli strikes had already hit Iranian positions in Syria and may now decide how to respond to Iran’s weakened posture. Lebanon’s Hezbollah has thus far stayed quiet, but any flare-up there (for instance, if Israel miscalculates or if Hezbollah seeks revenge) could redraw the map. Some U.S. allies will pressure Israel not to consider the Iran ceasefire as an excuse to ignore simultaneous conflicts; for instance, Qatar’s emir urged that talks to end the Gaza war resume “in the next two days” and warned Israel not to “take advantage” of this lull to keep bombing Gaza. In fact, Israel’s biggest opposition parties immediately demanded a complete ceasefire in Gaza as well, reflecting domestic pressure that any returned hostages be freed. Civilian casualties halted as a condition for broader peace.
Given these complexities, many international voices have been understandably cautious. EU officials describe the ceasefire news as “good but fragile.” They insist all parties must stand by the deal. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz was hopeful, tweeting that if the ceasefire “succeeds,” it would make the Middle East and world “safer.” Still, Lavrov’s comment about not being sure the truce will endure and the Kremlin’s hope that it will be “sustainable” speak to widespread uncertainty. On the ground, neither army has vacated captured positions, and Israeli jets remained poised on combat airfields.
In the end, the June 24 agreement is an uneasy truce born of exhaustion, a chance for both capitals to catch their breath rather than an actual peace treaty. Both sides have publicly crowed about victory and cast blame on the other for flare-ups, which suggests the underlying enmity has not been resolved. Analysts note that neither side made significant concessions: Iran has not dismantled any weapons, and Israel remains determined to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As Carnegie’s Amr Hamzawy points out, the lack of “collective diplomatic frameworks” in the region means even a ceasefire is only the first step. The coming days and weeks will test whether this deal is simply a pause in fighting or the beginning of a deeper negotiation. For now, families in Beersheba and Tehran alike pray that no fresh explosions will shatter the uneasy calm. Whether the ceasefire endures may depend less on any official signing and more on whether all parties truly decide that “enough is enough” in this conflict and whether outside powers are willing to facilitate a lasting settlement.
Add comment
Comments