Continue with Google
The June 2025 conflict between Israel, Iran, and the United States marked a dramatic escalation in decades of hostility, rooted in ideological rivalry and geopolitical maneuvering. Israel's preemptive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran's unprecedented missile attacks on Israeli cities were direct manifestations of their deep-seated animosity. The conflict's scale and intensity reflected not just immediate triggers but the cumulative effect of years of enmity, proxy battles, and mutual existential fears. This article examines the historical context fueling the crisis, quantifies the war's financial and human toll, and analyzes the strategic gains and losses for each nation.
For decades, Iran and Israel engaged in a shadow war. Iran supported militant groups targeting Israel, while Israel responded with covert operations, assassinations, and airstrikes against Iranian assets and proxies. This rivalry intensified after the Cold War, as Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas became central security concerns for Israel.The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, widely attributed to Iranian backing, and Israel's subsequent campaigns against Iranian proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, set the stage for direct confrontation.
Iran and Israel were once close allies until Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini severed diplomatic ties, labeled Israel the "Little Satan," and made its destruction a core policy. This stance, embedded in official rhetoric and policy across successive Iranian governments, led to the creation of an extensive proxy network—including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and various Iraqi and Syrian militias—designed to challenge Israel through asymmetric warfare and regional destabilization. This entrenched Iran's role as both a regional power broker and a persistent threat to Israel and U.S. interests.
Israel argues that Iran’s rapidly advancing uranium enrichment and alleged steps toward weaponization pose an imminent threat, justifying recent military strikes as necessary to prevent Iran from crossing a nuclear threshold. Israeli officials say Iran has enough enriched uranium for multiple bombs and is taking new steps toward weaponization. The UN nuclear watchdog cannot confirm Iran’s activities are entirely peaceful but also has no credible evidence of an active weapons program at this time. Israel’s claims that Iran is nearing a nuclear weapon are credible in terms of Iran’s technical progress, but are viewed with caution by international experts and U.S. intelligence.
The seeds of the 2025 conflict were sown in a broader context of global and regional power struggles. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel—both supported by Iran's affiliates—highlighted a worldwide contest between regimes resisting Western-led integration and those seeking to expand it. As Israel continued its campaign against Hamas in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, massacre, tensions with Iran simmered, with both sides preparing for a potential direct confrontation.
Rethinking Geopolitical Labels: An Asian Perspective on 'Global...
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a surprise barrage of airstrikes targeting Iranian military and nuclear facilities, including Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. These strikes killed several top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists, inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran fired hundreds of missiles and drones at Israeli cities, breaching Israel's advanced air defense systems and causing civilian casualties and widespread trauma.
The United States entered the conflict a week later, conducting "Operation Midnight Hammer"—a series of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. President Trump declared the sites "completely and fully obliterated," warning of further action if Iran retaliated. The U.S. justified its intervention as necessary to degrade Iran's nuclear weapons capability and counter its support for regional militant groups.
The two-week conflict resulted in heavy losses for all parties. Iran suffered between 610 and 974 deaths, including 268 military personnel and 387 civilians, with over 4,700 injuries. High-profile losses included IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists. Key nuclear facilities were severely damaged, though experts noted Iran could rebuild them within months.Airspace closures and oil price volatility further disrupted Iran's economy.
Israel reported 29 deaths (28 civilians) and over 3,200 injuries, including 345 children. Missile strikes damaged residential areas and hospitals, displacing thousands and causing widespread psychological trauma. The financial cost of the war for Israel is estimated between $3 billion. The United States did not report human casualties, but billions were spent on military operations. The strike on Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base strained U.S.-Qatari relations, representing a diplomatic setback.
The conflict triggered global concern about a potential wider war. The United Nations and numerous countries called for restraint and renewed diplomatic efforts, warning that further escalation could have disastrous consequences for the region and beyond. Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen threatened to resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the conflict continued, underscoring the risk of regional spillover.
A U.S.-brokered ceasefire took effect on June 24, 2025, with President Trump declaring the war's objectives achieved and warning Iran against further retaliation. However, the ceasefire remains fragile, with both sides reserving the right to respond to violations. While the strikes delayed Iran's nuclear program, they did not destroy it; uranium stockpiles may have been relocated, and Iran has vowed to rebuild its proxies. Israel, meanwhile, demonstrated air superiority and intelligence capabilities but remains on high alert for renewed threats.
Strategically, Israel succeeded in degrading Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, eliminating key commanders, and showcasing its intelligence prowess. However, it continues to face ongoing asymmetric threats from Iran's proxies and heightened regional instability. Iran, for its part, portrayed resilience by striking Israeli and U.S. targets and framed the ceasefire as a "victory." Its nuclear ambitions, however, have been set back, and its regional position weakened by proxy losses and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. Likewise, the United States temporarily crippled Iran's nuclear facilities and reinforced its role as a regional power broker, but at the cost of strained alliances and increased diplomatic challenges.
The June 2025 conflict underscored Iran's central role in regional proxy warfare and the immense costs of confronting its nuclear ambitions. While the ceasefire has halted immediate violence, the core issues—Iran's support for militant groups, nuclear pursuits, and mutual distrust—remain unresolved. Despite heavy casualties and infrastructure damage on both sides, neither regime collapsed nor achieved total victory. Iran's ability to retaliate and survive the onslaught reinforced its narrative of resistance, while Israel's strikes demonstrated its willingness to act unilaterally to secure its survival. The ceasefire that followed did little to resolve the underlying issues: Iran's commitment to Israel's destruction, its support for militant proxies, and Israel's determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.
In summary, the 2025 conflict was not an isolated event but the latest—and most direct—expression of a historical rivalry defined by ideological opposition, proxy warfare, and the persistent threat of escalation. This antagonism shaped every aspect of the war, from its causes to its conduct and aftermath, ensuring that the core tensions between Iran and Israel remain unresolved.
The ripple effects of this type of conflict, particularly the rising oil prices, will almost certainly increase living costs in countries like Nepal. Nepal’s economy relies heavily on imported petroleum products, so any surge in global oil prices directly raises fuel costs. Higher oil prices also typically cause broader inflation especially since Nepal imports about 70% of what it consumes. Even if inflation rates appear low on paper, as revealed by the country’s central bank, Nepal Rastra Bank, the actual price levels for necessities including food, and transport can remain high for low-income households. Similarly, Nepal’s economy is predominantly dependent upon remittances which can fall due to job losses in the unstable Middle East.
Ultimately, the harsh truth is that war offers no lasting solution to human created problems. So is this war. As U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wisely articulated, "There is no military resolution. The sole way forward is through diplomacy." But the question remains: when will our leaders finally understand it.
