News related to
strikes

Iran has achieved its highest energy output in nearly half a century, as crude production and exports continue expanding despite escalating tensions and Western sanctions. In 2024, total oil output—including crude and gas liquids—reached approximately 5.1 million barrels per day, marking levels unseen since before 1978. Indicators from the first half of 2025 signal further growth, reinforcing Tehran’s stance that its energy sector remains resilient even under pressure.

China remains the principal destination for Iranian crude. According to Vortexa and Kpler data, Beijing imported an average of 1.4 million bpd of Iranian crude and condensate during the first half of 2025. In June alone, Chinese imports surged to a record 1.8 million bpd, exploiting floating storage reserves accumulated previously.

Despite U. S. legal restrictions, these volumes endure through intricate shipping methods and discounts. As of June, Iranian crude was being sold to China at discounts of $3.30–$3.50 per barrel below Brent—the widest spread since 2023—partly triggered by weak demand from independent Chinese “teapot” refineries and additional U. S. sanctions on mid-tier processing firms in Shandong province. Refineries such as these have cut utilisation rates to around 51 per cent, down from 64 per cent last year.

Iran’s export capacity has been safeguarded by infrastructural alternatives designed to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The Goreh‑Jask pipeline and Jask terminal—capable of exporting around 300,000 bpd—offer strategic flexibility, although actual utilisation fell to under 70,000 bpd in late 2024. Elsewhere, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also enhanced their own bypass routes through the Strait to mitigate risk.

Nonetheless, current events pose fresh challenges. Israeli strikes in June damaged parts of oil infrastructure near Tehran and affected the South Pars gas field—responsible for up to 700,000 bpd of condensate. Exports from key terminals such as Kharg Island briefly dropped below 120,000 bpd from a weekly average of 1.7 million bpd. However, Iran manages significant stockpiles—approximately 27.5 million barrels afloat—that can sustain exports for weeks.

Domestic dynamics complicate this energy story further. Iran’s gasoline consumption has outpaced refining capacity by nearly 15–20 per cent since late 2024, triggering reliance on reserves and imports to fill shortfalls. Peak summer demand reached unprecedented levels, surpassing 143 million litres in a single day. Panic-buying followed some military strikes, exposing strains in planning and supply.

Iran’s global energy standing aligns with broader market projections. The International Energy Agency forecasts that global oil supply will exceed demand in 2025 by around 1.8 million bpd, a backdrop that may soften impacts from Iranian output. At the same time, discussions in Washington about lifting U. S. sanctions have raised concerns in Beijing, particularly for its fragmented independent refining sector. Analysts warn that a sudden lifting of sanctions could flood global markets—with an additional 500,000 bpd of Iranian oil—and undercut smaller Chinese players by crushing their margins.

Iran’s energy strategy shows calculated resilience. While nuclear tensions invite military risks, the oil ministry appears intent on diversifying markets, expanding infrastructure, and leveraging geopolitical leverage. Iran Daily reported that production comprised 4.3 million bpd of crude plus around 0.7 million bpd of other liquids in 2024. Analysts advocate that increased domestic use, ageing facilities, and investment gaps could temper the pace of future gains unless Tehran secures long-term funding and technical partnerships.

Observers note the inherent paradox: Iran continues ramping production even as global energy security faces renewed uncertainty. Control over chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz remains central. Although no full closure has occurred—the Iranian parliament proposed closure in late June pending council approval—the symbolic threat alone underlines Tehran’s strategic positioning. Global markets, buoyed by inventories and diversified routes, have so far absorbed the shock. Yet any escalation could rapidly unsettle thresholds.

Iran has reopened its airspace and most airports to domestic and international flights after a total shutdown that began on 13 June amid escalating hostilities with Israel. Transit operations over central and western regions are permitted between 05:00 and 18:00 local time, though services from Isfahan and Tabriz remain on hold until essential safety measures are reinstated.

Authorities confirmed that both Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini airports in Tehran, alongside facilities in the north, east, west and south, are now operational during daylight hours. Western and central corridors are open solely to international transit flights, while eastern airspace had already been accessible continuously. Domestic flights to and from Tehran and regional airports will resume once infrastructure is fully restored in line with civil aviation guidelines.

The closure followed a series of Israeli airstrikes on Iran—targeting nuclear sites, missile production facilities and senior military figures—which prompted a robust Iranian response and prompted precautionary airspace closures across neighbouring nations, including Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf states. Airlines rerouted or cancelled flights as a prelude to the region-wide suspension of air travel.

A ceasefire that took effect on 24 June gradually paved the way for these reopenings. Initial access was granted to the eastern region on 25 June, subsequently extended to central and western sectors by 28 June. However, intermittent military alerts and infrastructure disruptions have delayed full normalisation, particularly in Isfahan and Tabriz, where further runway and navigation enhancements are ongoing.

The staggered reopening reflects Tehran’s cautious approach. Majid Akhavan, a spokesman for the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, made it clear that air traffic remains under stringent review. He urged travellers to monitor official announcements and refrain from heading to airports until confirmed schedules are issued, citing lingering security concerns.

Flight carriers are cautiously recalibrating their routes. Dubai-based Emirates, while slated to resume flights to Tehran on 5 July, continues to suspend services citing regional instability. Air Arabia, flydubai and other Gulf-based airlines are restoring routes to Iran incrementally, yet remain poised to implement rapid reroutes if tensions escalate. India’s airlines, affected by reroutes over Pakistan earlier this year, are closely tracking developments as Iran reopens key air corridors.

The restoration also supports humanitarian efforts, as demonstrated in June when Iran temporarily opened its airspace for Operation Sindhu, aiding the evacuation of around 1,000 students via charter flights. That exception underscored a willingness to prioritise civilian movement despite the turbulent context.

Analysts indicate that Iran’s role as a major air transit hub linking Europe and Asia makes its airspace a strategic asset for global aviation. The closure had already prompted prolonged flight schedules, increased operational costs and forced carriers into longer routes over Central Asia or Gulf nations. Renewed access is expected to alleviate congestion, reduce costs and enhance connectivity—provided the ceasefire endures.

Security remains the overriding determinant. The aftermath of Israeli strikes revealed Iranian air defences were significantly degraded, prompting internal crackdowns, arrests and increased surveillance across Tehran. This atmosphere continues to inform aviation authorities and airlines evaluating the risks of resuming services fully.

As daylight flight operations proceed, aviation experts caution that any flare-up could trigger speedier closures than in June. The Ministry has signalled readiness to reinstate restrictions at short notice. Safety advisories emphasise real-time assessments of missile threats, missile defence readiness and diplomatic ties.

A deepening rift between Iran and international nuclear inspectors marks a turning point in Tehran’s approach to its atomic programme and signals a complex challenge for global diplomacy. Iran has formally suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, severing communication channels and obstructing inspections, in the wake of U.S. and Israeli military strikes on its nuclear sites.

The move was set in motion on 23 June when Iran’s parliamentary national security committee approved a framework for halting camera installation, inspections, and reporting to the IAEA unless the “security of nuclear facilities is guaranteed”. The legislation was ratified by the Guardian Council on 26 June and now awaits signature from President Masoud Pezeshkian. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf justified the step, stating that cooperation should resume only when IAEA activity ceases to endanger facilities.

Iran has since implemented the decision, reportedly blocking emergency channel calls from the IAEA’s Vienna headquarters. According to a Bloomberg report, once the Incident and Emergency Centre had been in sustained dialogue since 13 June, communication has now dwindled to silence.

The suspension has intensified global worry over what happened at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites that were struck in late June by U.S. and Israeli forces. Satellite imagery indicates significant damage, and the UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi described the destruction as “enormous”, stating that centrifuges at Fordow are no longer operational. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the strikes as theatrics, displaying defiance in his first address since a ceasefire with Israel, while the IAEA has received no formal notification from Tehran about the halt.

Inspectors face a dual challenge: assessing bomb damage and reconciling it with actual uranium stockpiles. Reuters reports that uncovering whether enriched uranium was destroyed, buried in debris or clandestinely moved will be “long and arduous”. IAEA chief Grossi noted Iran informed him on 13 June it had taken measures to protect nuclear materials — raising the possibility that uranium was relocated before the bombings.

A senior diplomat cautioned that verifying the fate of enriched stocks will require extended forensic and environmental analysis. Analysts highlight that these uncertainties, coupled with Iran’s growing 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile — now surpassed 400 kg — raise proliferation concerns. Iran stands as the only non-nuclear-weapons state to produce such highly enriched material.

The crisis threatens to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Experts warn that Iran’s rejection of oversight and potential expansion of enrichment capabilities could erode confidence in international safeguards and spark similar behaviour in other states.

Tehran counters that it remains compliant with its obligations, defending the withdrawal as a sovereignty measure and accusing the IAEA of complicity in aggression. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov urged Iran to maintain IAEA cooperation. German officials echoed this sentiment, appealing for de-escalation and finer calibration.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence contend the strikes brought Iran’s enrichment efforts to a standstill, yet stop short of describing them as complete obliteration. Donald Trump claimed the attacks eliminated any need for a new nuclear deal, yet leaked U.S. intelligence suggests only a short-term delay of a few months.

Disruption of IAEA activities follows a pattern of mounting distrust. The agency censure on 12 June marked the first formal finding of non-compliance by Iran in two decades. Tehran subsequently announced expansion of enrichment infrastructure, including a third site and advanced centrifuges.

This standoff adds complexity to diplomatic efforts. Indirect U.S.–Iran negotiations held from April to June in Oman and Rome collapsed when Israel struck nuclear facilities on 13 June. Although Washington has signalled readiness to resume dialogue, Iran’s decision to suspend IAEA cooperation adds another layer of mistrust.

The prospect of tracking uranium movements amid top-secret relocation efforts, inaccessible bombed sites, and blocked communications has created a labyrinthine challenge. Inspectors and intelligence agencies alike face a “cat-and-mouse” hunt for clarity in rubble and uncertainty. Continued monitoring and a potential return to diplomatic channels will be vital in determining whether the inspection suspension is temporary or signals a more fundamental shift in Iran’s nuclear stance.

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that American and Iranian officials will meet next week to discuss Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, following a concerted military campaign that he claims has effectively neutralised key Iranian enrichment facilities. The announcement came at the NATO summit in The Hague.

Trump defended the use of bunker-busting bombs against the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan sites, asserting they had been “obliterated” and describing the bombing campaign as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear programme. He struck a triumphant tone, crediting the strikes with hastening the end of the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, though he expressed reservations about formalising a diplomatic agreement: “We may sign an agreement. I don’t know, to me, I don’t think it’s that necessary,” he told reporters.

U.S. intelligence assessments, however, diverge on the scale of success. A preliminary report from the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded the setbacks to Iran’s nuclear efforts might be limited to a matter of months, not years. CIA Director John Ratcliffe affirmed that the programme had been “severely damaged” but stopped short of declaring it destroyed. Israeli officials estimated the setbacks to be multi‑year, while the International Atomic Energy Agency emphasised uncertainties over Iran’s stockpile and called for robust inspections.

Diplomatic activity has meanwhile resumed. This U.S.–Iran meeting will follow six rounds of indirect talks mediated by Oman and Italy, which collapsed in mid‑June as the military confrontation intensified. Earlier this week, European envoys from the E‑3—France, Germany and the UK—engaged in direct negotiations in Geneva with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Those discussions aimed to bridge differences after stalled U.S. efforts.

White House special envoy Steve Witkoff reiterated red‑line U.S. stipulations ahead of next week’s meeting: Tehran must renounce nuclear weaponisation and accept restrictions on uranium enrichment. He noted the U.S. is open to crafting a comprehensive peace framework, building on what Trump described as a de‑escalation following “a victory for everybody”.

From Tehran, Iranian officials have not confirmed next week’s meeting but emphasised national security. The Iranian parliament accelerated a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, pending guarantees for the safety of nuclear infrastructure targeted in the strikes. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf accused the IAEA of failing to condemn the U.S. attack. Meanwhile, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi urged renewed inspections to clarify the status of enriched uranium moved before the bombings.

Regional and global actors are also weighing in. France has called for robust diplomacy to carve a sustained peace path. China has echoed the call for diplomatic restraint. Israel hailed the strikes as a critical setback to Iran’s programme; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed Trump’s strong posture and emphasised the need to keep pressure on Tehran.

Analysts note the gravity of waging diplomacy in the shadow of military action. One specialist observed that while bombings may degrade enrichment infrastructure, they can complicate trust and cooperation needed for inspections and verification. Moreover, uncertainty lingers over the status of highly enriched uranium caches. Rebuilding diplomatic channels will require assurances, reciprocal transparency, and a mutual understanding of consequences.

Trump has warned that if Iran attempts to rebuild its nuclear programme, the U.S. is prepared to act again: “Sure,” he said when asked about further strikes. Yet the pendulum has swung toward a blend of military deterrence and diplomatic engagement.

As next week’s talks approach, key questions remain: who will represent each side, where the dialogue will occur, and whether the focus will be solely nuclear constraints or broader regional stability. White House administration officials have yet to disclose details, but the U.S. envoy confirmed Washington’s intent is to establish a framework that could replace the 2015 agreement.

Trump also signalled openness to exploring a bilateral relationship beyond nuclear confines: “We’ll end up having something of a relationship with Iran,” he said, as long as Tehran adheres to non‑weaponisation terms.

As the diplomatic window opens under the spectre of military force, the world watches to see whether this fragile blend of coercion and conciliation can unfold into a sustainable agreement—one that might ensure Iran never pursues nuclear weapons and stabilises a volatile region.

Air India and IndiGo have recommenced services to the UAE after a suspension triggered by airspace closures amid the Israel–Iran conflict. Airlines halted operations on Monday following triggered restrictions from missile strikes on the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. With Gulf skies now reopening, the carriers have initiated phased resumption of flights, prioritising passenger safety and adjusted routing measures.

Reinstatement efforts began on Tuesday, with most Air India flights to and from the Middle East set to resume by 25 June. The airline confirmed European routes would also come back online, and services to the U.S. East Coast and Canada are slated to recommence “at the earliest opportunity”. IndiGo echoed this approach, stating operations through Gulf countries had “stabilised”, albeit with some flights rerouting around closed Iranian airspace, which may cause extended journey times. Air India Express has similarly resumed select West Asian routes, including those from Delhi and Mumbai to Muscat, Riyadh, Jeddah and key UAE destinations.

The sudden airspace closure followed Iran’s missile assault on Qatar’s Al Udeid base in retaliation to U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear sites. Multiple states, including the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and Qatar, sealed their skies, incurring over 160 flight diversions. Airlines including Air India, IndiGo, Gulf carriers, and major European operators were forced into rerouting, cancellations and prolonged airborne holds.

In Bengaluru, Kempegowda International Airport experienced significant disruption on Monday, as 21 international flights were either cancelled or diverted. Six incoming flights and ten departures were scrapped, while five services arriving from the Middle East were rerouted to Bengaluru. The affected flights included services from IndiGo, Air India, Akasa Air, Kuwait Airways and Gulf Air, connecting destinations such as Doha, Abu Dhabi, Jeddah, Kuwait, London, Dubai, Dammam and Bahrain. IndiGo has since issued advisories encouraging passengers to verify their itineraries via the airline’s app or website.

Airspace closures prompted widespread disruptions across India. At Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport, 48 flights were cancelled. The closures also affected routes beyond the Gulf, with Air India suspending services to Europe, the East Coast of North America and Canada. Such decisions followed safety concerns reminiscent of past incidents involving civilian aircraft in conflict zones.

Air India’s messaging emphasised the phased nature of the restoration plan. The airline noted that most flights to the Middle East would resume by 25 June and affirmed regular updates to passengers via official channels. Delays and reroutings may continue temporarily as the network stabilises. The airline pledged to avoid airspace deemed unsafe by international aviation authorities. IndiGo’s CEO framed the resumption as “prudent and progressive”, committed to using the safest routes amid ongoing monitoring.

Industry experts highlight the additional burden on airlines due to these disruptions. Longer flight paths translate to higher fuel consumption and operational costs. Rival carriers in Europe and the Middle East have already adopted detours to bypass Israeli, Iraqi and Jordanian airspace, citing financial impacts and tighter margins. Brent crude oil briefly climbed to around $70.80 per barrel following the regional skirmishes, adding strain on airline fuel budgets.

Passenger advocacy groups have urged transparency from carriers during this phase. With unforeseen diversions and cancellations, travellers seek clarity on compensation, rerouting options and timely notifications. Airline platforms are now investing in real-time advisory systems to minimise frustration and smooth operational turbulence.

The current easing of tensions appears tied to a ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States, accepted by both Israel and Iran. Although hostilities continue in limited form, the reopening of Gulf airspace indicates improved conditions for aviation. Travel experts caution, however, that volatility may persist if diplomatic progress stalls or military exchanges recur.

For Indian travellers, the resumption of Middle East routes is particularly timely. The Gulf region is a major employment and transit hub, hosting millions of Indian nationals. Restored connectivity affects not only personal travel but also supply chains, cargo links and business routes vital to India’s economic relations with Gulf partners.

Looking ahead, most Indian airlines face a dual challenge: restoring pre-conflict schedules while preparing contingency plans for renewed tensions. Many are exploring additional over-water routes, flexible flight planning and enhanced coordination with aviation regulators. These efforts aim to ensure that in the event of future disruptions, passenger inconvenience is minimised and safety remains paramount.

A U.S. intelligence assessment indicates that the air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, have damaged above-ground structures and access points but left underground enrichment infrastructure and uranium stockpiles largely undisturbed. The report by the Defence Intelligence Agency projects only a temporary setback—measured in months—to Iran’s nuclear programme, challenging assertions by the White House that the sites were “totally obliterated”.

Satellite imagery released after the strikes on 22 June shows craters and blocked entrances at Fordow, where bunker-busting Massive Ordnance Penetrators reportedly hit ventilation shafts, yet analysts emphasise that the subterranean halls housing centrifuges lie too deep to evaluate via overhead visuals. WMD experts note that centrifuges are “extremely vibration-sensitive”, suggesting potential internal damage, but absent on-site inspection, the extent remains uncertain.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has urged renewed inspections at the sites. Director-General Rafael Grossi told an emergency Board of Governors session that significant underground damage was plausible, yet only rigorous inspections can confirm impact and assess stockpiles of enriched uranium, including the 400 kg of material enriched to 60 percent purity.

The DIA report also confirms that Iranian authorities pre-positioned crucial nuclear materials and equipment prior to the air campaign. High-resolution satellite images captured extensive vehicle activity—bulldozers, trucks and sealed tunnel exits—on 19–21 June, indicating a deliberate evacuation of enriched uranium and centrifuges. Analysts speculate this operation undercut the campaign’s intended impact, preserving Iran’s capacity to resume enrichment and reconstitution of its nuclear programme with comparative ease.

The White House disputes the DIA’s findings. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the intelligence leak as “flat‑out wrong”, citing the precision of the bombing campaign and reiterating President Trump’s declaration of a “perfectly executed mission” and “total obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, the Pentagon backs the President, contending that USAF and Navy strikes, featuring B‑2 stealth bombers flying 37‑hour missions deploying MOPs, decisively hit their targets.

Despite official optimism, several non-proliferation experts question whether the attacks achieved strategic success. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, asserted that while imagery suggests severe impact at Fordow, conclusive assessment requires internal access. Jeffrey Lewis and other analysts emphasise that intact uranium stockpiles, even if held at other sites, provide Iran with a largely intact nuclear baseline.

The conflict has escalated beyond the nuclear dimension. Intermittent Iranian missile and drone fire has targeted U.S. and allied bases in the wider Middle East, prompting a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Iran and Israel, while global oil prices fluctuated amid tensions.

IAEA technical teams have not yet been able to return to the sites. Grossi reminded parties that uninterrupted oversight is essential for both verifying the damage and ensuring no material has been diverted for weapons purposes. Iran has not formally objected to future inspections, although parliamentary figures have suggested curbs on IAEA activity if international hostility continues.

Assessment of long‑term outcomes remains contested. Pro‑strike voices argue that disrupting operations, even temporarily, imposes significant costs on Iran’s programme architecture. Critics warn that such tactics could drive Tehran’s nuclear scientific talent further underground or accelerate development of redundant facilities.

Meanwhile, intelligence officials and non‑proliferation authorities emphasise that blunts, quarterly backtracking cannot substitute for diplomacy. Restoring negotiations with Iran, potentially via intermediaries including the IAEA, remains the keystone for ensuring non‑weaponisation and preventing recurrence.

The DIA characterises damage as limited to “core components and stockpiles”—an interpretation not aligned with politically driven portrayals of mission success. As conflict fatigue weighs on global observers, the effectiveness of military action in halting nuclear proliferation faces renewed scrutiny.

Israeli defence minister Israel Katz declared late on 24 June that he had ordered the Israel Defence Forces to resume “high‑intensity operations” against regime targets in central Tehran. The announcement followed allegations that Iran had launched missiles into Israeli territory, in what Tel Aviv described as a blatant breach of a United States‑mediated ceasefire unveiled just hours earlier by President Donald Trump.

Trump had proclaimed a “complete and total ceasefire” on Truth Social, explaining that Iran would halt strikes first, followed by Israel, in a phased arrangement ending after 24 hours. Within three hours of that declaration, Israel alleged that Iran launched missiles toward its southern regions, prompting Katz’s directive to strike key Iranian infrastructure.

Contradicting Israel’s account, Tehran’s ISNA student news agency denied firing any missiles post‑ceasefire. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had earlier stated that Tehran would cease retaliatory actions—conditional on Israel halting operations by 04:00 Tehran time, a condition that purportedly lapsed minutes before hostilities were to pause.

President Trump, addressing the situation on social media, urged both nations to honour the agreement and warned against any violations, offering his oversight as guarantor of the pledge. His announcement followed the deployment of U.S. B‑2 bombers striking three Iranian nuclear sites, and a symbolic retaliatory missile strike from Iran against a U.S. base in Qatar—strikes reportedly calibrated to minimise escalation.

Despite conflicting claims, available evidence indicates a spike in missile exchanges. According to Reuters, Israel’s southern city of Beersheba was hit, resulting in at least four fatalities, while various townships experienced temporary power outages after sirens sounded across the region as Iranian missiles streaked overhead.

Tehran mourned significant civilian losses, with over 10 Israelis killed and more than 250 injured during Iran’s earlier onslaught, which included bombardments on central and southern Israeli regions. Meanwhile, Israel took credit for eliminating senior Iranian military personnel and striking strategic nuclear and missile infrastructure; Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated Israel’s success in degrading what he described as a dual existential threat posed by Iran’s capabilities.

Regionally, Qatar responded strongly, summoning Iran’s ambassador and condemning the attack on U.S. forces at Al Udeid Air Base as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Saudi Arabia expressed hope that all parties would uphold the ceasefire and de‑escalate.

International markets reacted positively to the ceasefire’s initial announcement. Oil prices dropped, and equities rallied on optimism that the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz might ease—although the renewed strikes quickly revived fears of a wider conflagration.

Experts scrutinise the long‑term viability of the truce. Some analysts suggest installation damage to Iran’s nuclear programme may be reversible, with Iran’s leadership determined to rebuild. Others view the U.S. use of bunker‑buster bombs and Israel’s strategic targeting of Iranian deterrents as potential deterrents that may delay a rapid resurgence.

On the political front, Trump is leveraging the declared ceasefire as a foreign‑policy milestone ahead of an imminent NATO summit. Netanyahu affirmed Israel would respond forcefully to any violations. Tehran warned that its military exercise would persist unless the bombing ended, contending that it acted to “punish Israel for its aggression until the very last minute”.

As global attention turns to negotiations, Qatar’s mediation role and U.S. involvement loom large. The deal remains tentative, with both Israel and Iran accusing each other of breaking terms, and uncertainty surrounding whether Trump’s phased ceasefire timeline will endure.

Donald Trump proclaimed a full ceasefire between Israel and Iran on Monday, marking what he described as the end of a “12‑day war” that forced millions from Tehran and sparked grave fears of escalation. He posted on Truth Social that Iran would halt its operations at midnight ET, followed by Israel twelve hours later, culminating in a 24‑hour cessation of hostilities.

Trump touted the move as a diplomatic breakthrough, congratulating “both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end” the conflict. He asserted that the agreement was brokered in discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and through U.S. envoys in dialogue with Tehran, with Qatar playing a key intermediary role.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, echoed that Tehran’s forces stood down at 4 a.m. Tehran time if Israel ceased its attacks by then, though he clarified that a final decision on halting military operations was pending. Israel’s military has yet to formally acknowledge the ceasefire, and missile alerts and strikes were still reported over Tel Aviv, Beersheba and the Golan Heights in the hours following the announcement.

The conflict began on 13 June when Israel launched airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, including sites near Natanz, Isfahan and Tehran. That response, which Israeli authorities described as necessary to counter an alleged Iranian march towards nuclear weapons capability, included the destruction of centrifuge material and the deaths of senior Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with waves of missiles and drones aimed at Israeli territory; Israel intercepted many of them, but civilian casualties were reported in Beersheba and Tel Aviv.

The conflict widened when the United States joined with bunker‑buster strikes on Iranian underground nuclear facilities over the weekend, prompting Iran to retaliate by targeting the U.S. air base at Al Udeid in Qatar. The attack caused no casualties, and Trump later thanked Iran for the “early notice,” calling it a “very weak response”.

Though Trump dismissed European diplomatic efforts as ineffective, he warned that U.S. involvement remained a distinct possibility if Iran escalated further, positioning American strikes solely against nuclear targets. Internal Israeli pressure also rose; Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly instructed ministers to refrain from public commentary as military activity approached a pause.

Humanitarian fallout during this period has been acute. Over 650 Iranians have died, according to Iranian health data, including civilians, and over 200 Israeli military and civilian fatalities have been reported. Tehran saw large-scale evacuations as power and internet access faltered.

International bodies raised alarms over the bombardment of nuclear facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency cautioned against striking enrichment sites due to risks of radiological contamination. Legal experts also voiced concerns that the strikes on civilian infrastructure—including hospitals and residential neighborhoods—could constitute violations under international humanitarian law.

Despite the ceasefire declaration, uncertainty remains. Iran’s foreign minister warned that if Israeli attacks persisted past 4 a.m. Tehran time, hostilities could resume. Similarly, Israeli officials reported continued launcher of missiles from Iran, demonstrating that the ceasefire may be fragile.

Regional and global reactions have been varied. Qatar’s prime minister was credited with facilitating Iran’s acceptance of the U.S.-proposed ceasefire. European negotiators, meanwhile, expressed frustration that efforts in Geneva had produced little movement before hostilities intensified. Both Russia and China urged restraint and urged full de‑escalation.

Markets responded positively to the ceasefire announcement, reflecting investor hopes for regional stability, yet the humanitarian toll and legal implications—the destruction of nuclear infrastructure, civilian casualties, and potential violations of international law—leave an ambiguous legacy for a war that surged in intensity over just under two weeks. The path ahead now hinges on whether both nations uphold the phased withdrawal and open room for diplomatic resolution amid deep mistrust.

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a “complete and total” ceasefire between Israel and Iran, set to begin within hours, marking what he described as the end of a 12‑day war. The plan envisages Iran initiating a 12‑hour ceasefire, followed by a reciprocal Israeli hiatus, concluding with a full cessation of hostilities.

Trump’s statement on his social media platform outlined a phased process: Iran will commence the ceasefire after winding down its final missions, followed by Israel 12 hours later, and after 24 hours the war will be declared over. He praised both nations for their “stamina, courage, and intelligence” and characterised the agreement as a significant step towards lasting peace.

The announcement follows a dramatic escalation in regional tensions. Israel launched military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in response to Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. Tehran retaliated by firing up to 14 missiles at the U.S.-operated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. While 13 were intercepted and one deviated off course, no U.S. personnel were harmed—a fact President Trump described as a “very weak response.”

Despite global concerns over escalation, including warnings from France and other Western capitals, market responses have remained muted. Oil prices dropped approximately 7% in anticipation of de‑escalation, while equity markets posted modest gains.

Though the ceasefire announcement has generated optimism, it remains unverified by Israeli or Iranian leaders. As of now, neither government has publicly confirmed their commitment to the arrangement. Al Jazeera noted the absence of official statements from both sides.

The U.S. role in brokering this agreement highlights Trump’s assertive posture. He denied prior suggestions that France’s Emmanuel Macron had brokered such a deal, countering that the ceasefire plan was “much bigger than that.” Analysts warn that trust between Israel and Iran remains fragile, requiring robust verification mechanisms and potentially third-party monitoring to sustain the fragile peace.

European diplomats, including those from France, Germany and the UK, have previously urged for de‑escalation after U.S. strikes, facilitating a clash of diplomacy and military brinkmanship. Trump has also floated the prospect of regime change in Iran under the slogan “Make Iran Great Again,” sparking concerns about the endgame and durability of U.S. involvement.

In Washington, debate has emerged regarding U.S. aims. Trump’s advisors say the administration does not seek regime change, yet the use of the slogan and his rhetoric suggests otherwise. Critics warn that pushing Iran into further isolation could spark domestic instability in Tehran.

Regions across the Gulf remained on high alert during the conflict. Airspace closures in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait affected international travel. Qatar has since reopened its skies following coordination with regional authorities. Countries in the region—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and France included—expressed deep concern and reinforced calls for dialogue and restraint.

Security analysts note that the potential for a broader conflagration, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, persisted until the ceasefire announcement. Iran’s parliamentary body had discussed strategic deterrents, including the possibility of closing the strait, a move that could severely disrupt global oil supplies. The upcoming hours will be decisive in determining whether the ceasefire is respected or if underlying tensions reignite.

The absence of casualties on either the U.S. or Israeli side contrasts with reported losses in Iran and Israel. Israeli strikes reportedly killed several hundred Iranians, including Revolutionary Guard members, while Iran was testing its limited retaliatory capabilities.

Infrastructure damage in both nations has been notable though not crippling. On the Iranian side, Tehran’s Evin prison and Revolutionary Guard sites bore the brunt of Israeli air raids; on the Israeli side, civilian infrastructure has remained largely intact, shielded by missile defence systems such as Iron Dome.

Stock markets and global commodity prices will closely monitor the ceasefire’s implementation. Should it hold, analysts suggest stability may regain foothold and prices may further retreat. However, any violation could push markets back into turmoil.

Diplomatically, Europe appears keen to reaffirm diplomatic channels. The EU and UN are reportedly preparing statements urging verification and offering mediation. Russia and China have also urged parties to uphold the ceasefire and avoid widening the conflict.

The next 24 hours are critical. The phased ceasefire hinges on mutual restraint and credible enforcement measures. U.N. observers or allied forces may be deployed to Tehran and Tel Aviv to verify compliance. Confirmation of Iran’s opening of its airspace and Israel’s military stand‑down orders will be key signals.

Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting around 10,000 U.S. and allied personnel, was struck on 23 June 2025 by a volley of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles launched by Iran in apparent retaliation for American airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. Qatar’s air defences intercepted the incoming salvo, reported as six missiles by Iran and fourteen by U.S. sources, with no casualties or significant damage recorded.

Tehran described the strike as a calibrated response, matching the number of missiles to bombs used in the U.S. assault on Natanz, Fordow and Esfahan, suggesting a bid to avoid civilian harm. Iranian state media dubbed the action “Operation Glad Tidings of Victory” and stressed it was carried out away from populated areas. U.S. President Donald Trump, characterising the barrage as “very weak,” acknowledged that Iran provided advance notice, enabling effective interception and preventing casualties.

Qatar issued a forceful denunciation, condemning the barrage as a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty and international law. Dr Majed bin Mohammed Al Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, warned that the country reserves the right to respond proportionally and reiterated calls for a return to genuine diplomacy. Qatar Airways temporarily suspended flights amid the airspace closure, and India’s embassy in Doha advised nationals to remain cautious amid the unfolding tensions.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia also condemned the violence. The UAE described the missiles as a breach of Qatari sovereignty and called for an immediate halt to military escalation. Riyadh echoed this stance, expressing full support for Qatar and branding the strike “unjustifiable,” warning of broader destabilisation. The Arab League, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman joined the chorus, denouncing the attack and urging restraint.

Western capitals emphasised caution. France and Germany condemned the missile salvo but underscored the necessity of diplomacy. The United Nations and European Union called for urgent de-escalatory measures and a return to negotiations, with António Guterres warning of the risk of “regional conflagration”. Beijing and Moscow echoed appeals for a diplomatic resolution.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that Iran would not succumb to aggression and that its missile barrage equalled the U.S. assault. Tehran also hinted at further measures if U.S. actions persist. Meanwhile, Israel unleashed its most extensive air campaign yet on Tehran, striking sites including Evin Prison and Fordow enrichment facility.

The strikes on Qatar and also U.S. bases in Iraq—though unconfirmed beyond Qatar—have prompted airspace closures over Gulf nations including Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Commercial carriers like IndiGo and Air India Express issued advisories or rerouted flights, contributing to widening disruptions in travel.

Global financial markets reacted nervously, with oil prices briefly spiking over fears of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for global energy shipments. The International Atomic Energy Agency, meanwhile, voiced anxiety about the security of Iran’s nuclear sites following the U.S. bombardment.

Analysts suggest Iran’s approach was designed to recalibrate the balance of deterrence without provoking full-scale war. The matched missile count, pre-warning, and focus on a remote military target indicate a calculated effort to signal strength while avoiding mass casualties.

Diplomats across Europe, the U.N. and the Gulf pressed for an immediate halt to further strikes and for major powers to step up mediation. Qatar, a longstanding facilitator of regional talks, is uniquely positioned to spearhead efforts. Both Iran and the U.S. have acknowledged potential for dialogue: Trump spoke of the prospect of “peace and harmony,” echoing Tehran’s assertions that the strike completed its “symbolic” objectives.

But with tensions now inflamed between Iran, Israel and the U.S., and Gulf states on alert, diplomatic channels face a critical juncture. Any miscalculation could unleash renewed conflict across the region.

U.S. military jets attacked three uranium-enrichment facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—after President Trump authorised a precision bombing campaign targeting underground shafts, marking a significant escalation in efforts to curb Tehran’s atomic ambitions. Trump asserted that the installations were “totally obliterated” following deployment of B‑2 stealth bombers armed with GBU‑57 bunker‑buster munitions. Pentagon officials confirmed this was the first operational use of Massive Ordnance Penetrators.

Satellite imagery shows craters at Fordow and Natanz, alongside signs of collapsed tunnel entrances and surface damage. Yet analysts caution that subterranean caverns may remain intact. One crater at Natanz measured approximately 5.5 metres across, and a large support structure at Fordow appeared untouched. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no detectable increase in off‑site radiation but acknowledges an inability to evaluate underground facility damage.

Destruction of declared nuclear infrastructure may impair Iran’s enrichment capabilities temporarily, but it adds complexity to monitoring efforts. The strikes have disrupted IAEA inspectors’ routine inspections and scattered environmental samples, weakening the agency’s ability to conduct forensic analysis. Former IAEA official Robert Kelley warned that bomb‑strewn sites render isotopic sampling nearly impossible, complicating accurate uranium accounting.

On diplomatic and military fronts, the strikes have triggered serious concern. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister characterised global tensions as “millimetres” from the brink of nuclear confrontation. Iran’s leadership, including foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, condemned the attacks as “lawless aggression,” and pledged proportionate retaliation. Iranian state media reported missile defence operations over Tehran and Karaj, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned U.S. bases in the region may face “regrettable responses”.

Allies have issued mixed reactions. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong backed the action as a move to prevent weaponisation, though she also called for a halt to hostilities and a return to diplomacy. In Washington, lawmakers are divided: some Republicans applaud the airstrikes, while Democratic leaders criticise the unilateral decision absent congressional authorisation.

Despite military claims of success, experts caution that bombing cannot permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. A 2025 Reuters analysis noted that even well-targeted airstrikes would likely result in only temporary delay, with underground facilities concealing critical components and technical expertise intact. The IAEA’s upcoming board meeting in Vienna is expected to address both the fissile-material disruption and the challenge of rebuilding effective verification.

Iran had responded to earlier IAEA censure by announcing a new enrichment site and upgrading centrifuges at Fordow, deepening concerns over progress toward weaponisation. By mid‑June, the agency confirmed that Iran held approximately 409 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium—enough for several warheads if further refined.

Military strategists believe that while Israel’s campaigns damaged above‑ground infrastructure, only the U.S. possessed the capability to strike buried facilities effectively. But even with advanced bunker‑busters, Fordow remains a tough target; Israel earlier claimed it could strike the site independently, though many experts doubted that it had the means to deliver sufficient penetration.

Operation “Midnight Hammer,” as it is reportedly codenamed, has bolstered military deterrence, yet it may harden Iran’s resolve. Observers warn that Tehran is likely to deepen its program underground, reduce transparency, and accelerate its nuclear pursuits outside of IAEA oversight.

Amid rising hostilities, diplomatic overtures remain faint. Iranian and U.S. envoys were scheduled to meet in Oman, while Araghchi was set to confer with Russian counterparts in Moscow. The IAEA board’s deliberations in Vienna may prove a critical venue for negotiating how to restore inspections, assess nuclear inventory, and potentially revive diplomacy.

Analysts stress that without sustained oversight, military strikes risk igniting an arms race. Uranium shields buried deeper, veiled by bomb damage, could reemerge in new sites—potentially accelerating forceful advances outside the scrutiny of Western intelligence.

UAE authorities have successfully airlifted both citizens and expatriate residents from Iran amid mounting regional tensions stemming from the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict. These evacuation flights were carried out in full coordination with Iranian officials, who provided necessary transit clearances and logistical assistance, according to the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Passengers greeted on arrival in Abu Dhabi included Emirati nationals and resident visa holders. Some were visibly emotional—footage released by WAM showed arrivals embracing airport staff, while others knelt in gratitude upon disembarking. UAE officials confirmed that all evacuees underwent health screening and security checks; no medical emergencies were reported during the operation.

The decision to evacuate was prompted by intensifying hostilities between Iran and Israel, which have resulted in reciprocal missile and drone strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Since 13 June, airspace closures across Iran and neighbouring countries have disrupted commercial flights, leaving many foreign nationals stranded.

While Tehran’s nuclear sites have been under attack, Tehran’s government issued public messages minimising panic, yet civilians promptly fled towards northern provinces, leading to fuel shortages, transport gridlocks, and relief operations along highways. Over 100,000 people are believed to have relocated internally by 15 June, while a few hundred foreign evacuees have used authorised border crossings to exit Iran.

UAE’s timely action reflects an expansion of its foreign crisis response capabilities, built through previous evacuations from conflict zones such as Ukraine, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Evacuating via a mix of chartered aircraft and government-operated flights, the UAE used carefully planned air routes to skirt high-risk regions.

Parallel efforts by Gulf neighbours highlight broader regional coordination. Bahrain, Oman and others secured safe passage for their own nationals via land and air corridors; Oman alone registered over 150 evacuees through Bandar Abbas and Iraq logistics networks. Countries including India, China, the US, Germany and Poland activated repatriation schemes—India’s “Operation Sindhu” successfully repatriated 110 nationals through Armenia by 18 June.

While evacuation pipelines opened, Dubai and Abu Dhabi remain operational, and companies across the Gulf are updating contingency plans amid concerns over possible spill‑over and disruptions to critical infrastructure. Risk advisory firms are reporting heightened demand for intelligence services, crisis preparedness, and staff security measures.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reiterated its call for diplomacy as the sole pathway to stability. Its continuous diplomatic outreach has involved deep engagement with international partners and a strong appeal to the UN Security Council to broker de‑escalation amid what it describes as “exceptional circumstances”.

The evacuation marks a rare cooperative moment between the UAE and Iran, whose bilateral relations have at times been strained. Yet Iranian authorities’ facilitation of access to airports and transit permissions demonstrated a mutual willingness to protect civilians from broader geopolitical fallout.

With all Gulf evacuations through this phase concluded, attention now turns to whether diplomatic avenues will succeed in preventing further civilian displacement. Businesses and governments remain on alert, reinforcing emergency protocols and intelligence monitoring systems to safeguard personnel and operations in the face of uncertainty.

Oil markets swung sharply following the US Air Force’s striking of Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear facilities on 21 June, triggering a fresh wave of geopolitical risk. Brent crude futures jumped over 11 per cent earlier this week after Israeli attacks, and traders are now preparing for further price volatility once global trading resumes.

President Trump described the operation as a “spectacular military success” and warned that more targets await if Iran does not seek peace. The US employed six B‑2 bombers laden with GBU‑57 “bunker‑buster” bombs—ordnance only capable of penetrating Fordow‘s deep underground vaults. Natanz and Esfahan were also hit, reportedly using Tomahawks from submarines.

Market analysts warn that disruption to Iran’s 2.5 million barrels per day export capacity, plus the threat of a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, would lift risk premiums sharply. Oxford Economics estimates oil could reach $130 a barrel if Iran decides to close the Strait, sending inflation soaring.

Investors are preparing for turbulence in equities and a rush towards safe-haven assets like the US dollar and gold. Potomac River Capital’s CIO, Mark Spindel, warned of markets being “initially alarmed” with heightened volatility continuing until the extent of the damage is confirmed.

Global markets have seen mixed signals: while crude prices surged up to 18 per cent since Israel’s June 13 raids, equities such as the S&P 500 have remained relatively steady. Predicting a deeper sell-off may depend on whether Iran follows through with threats — including disrupting the Strait, leveraging regional proxies, or escalating cyber campaigns.

Iran’s official response has been defiant rather than conciliatory. Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organisation assures no radiation has been released, and lawmakers claim the damage is superficial and repairable. Iran’s foreign ministry has labelled the strikes “outrageous” and cautioned that the consequences will be “everlasting”.

Global leaders have voiced alarm. New Zealand’s foreign minister urged all parties to “de-escalate and return to diplomacy”, while Australia and Mexico emphasised restraint and dialogue. Venezuela and Cuba condemned the strikes as violations of international law, calling for immediate halt to military action.

Oil market specialist Saul Kavonic warns Brent could move towards $100 a barrel “depending on Iran’s retaliation”. While Saudi output increases may buffer short-term shortages, traders recognise that any direct counterstrike on Gulf tanker routes or infrastructure would compound risk.

The destruction of key nuclear enrichment sites may set back Iran’s nuclear programme temporarily. Yet experts caution that the regime’s scientific expertise cannot be fully neutralised and the damage might harden Tehran’s resolve to pursue a bomb. This may also hinder diplomatic engagement, as Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty and cease cooperation with the IAEA.

In financial hubs and oil centres from London to Shanghai, traders are reviewing risk models, stress-testing portfolios and hedging energy exposure. Asian markets, heavily reliant on Gulf crude, could face inflationary pressure if shipping routes are disrupted.

A key question now is whether the United States and its allies will pursue further strikes or shift to diplomatic pressure. Trump’s administration insists that Iran now has a binary choice: embrace peace or face further “precision” strikes. Critics warn that without congressional authorisation, deeper military involvement risks entangling the US in a long-term Middle East conflict.