The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty
In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still.
In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse.
Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel.
That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response.
But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one.
For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested.
But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well.
Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War
President Trump was angry. Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago. Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.' Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it. Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration. But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon. After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said. Image Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her. 'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.' Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment. There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms. Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials. In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said. Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019. After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success. Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics. Image Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness. At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all. A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group. At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring. In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran. As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign. Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.) Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.' He made similar comments on Friday. Image Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke. To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration. Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said. Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing. Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out. Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.' Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said. Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.' 'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Israel-Iran ConflictLive Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War
President Trump was angry. Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago. Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.' Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it. Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration. But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon. After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said. Image Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her. 'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.' Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment. There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms. Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials. In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said. Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019. After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success. Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics. Image Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness. At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all. A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group. At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring. In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran. As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign. Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.) Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.' He made similar comments on Friday. Image Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke. To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration. Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said. Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing. Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out. Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.' Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said. Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.' 'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Octa's oil outlook: Middle East tensions threaten global supply
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA - Media OutReach Newswire - 21 June 2025 - Crude oil, which is arguably the world's most important commodity, is on everybody's mind right now. The flared up conflict in the Middle East is increasing risks of a major oil supply shock, potentially pushing the price of 'black gold' into the stratosphere and completely derailing the global economy. In this article, Octa, a global retail broker, shares its expert opinion on the unfolding situation and outlines possible scenarios for the global oil market. Octa Broker As it often happens, the market started to price in the possibility of a new conflict in the Middle East well in advance. On 11 June, oil prices rose more than 4% after reports surfaced that the U.S. was preparing to evacuate its Iraqi embassy due to heightened security concerns in the region. Two days later, Israel and Iran exchanged airstrikes, pushing both Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the world's two major oil benchmarks, to five-month highs as investors anticipated potential supply disruptions from an open conflict. To this day, the conflict continues without resolution and oil prices remain elevated even as there are some telltale signs that the parties may be willing to negotiate. 'This burgeoning unrest introduces an unprecedented degree of volatility, significantly amplifying the specter of a catastrophic oil supply shock', argues Kar Yong Ang, a financial market analyst at Octa broker, adding that the conflict between Israel and Iran 'carries ominous potential to propel crude prices to unprecedented levels, thereby unleashing a cascade of detrimental effects that could, in the most dire of scenarios, cause a major global economic crisis'. Indeed, the Middle East in general and Iran in particular play a pivotal role in global energy markets. A substantial portion of the world's crude oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) is produced and exported in this region. Iran itself, despite the existing sanctions on exports, remains an important supplier of oil—notably, for China. Furthermore, a vast number of ships carrying crude oil and LNG transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow yet vital chokepoint that Iran has repeatedly threatened to close. Should Iran act on this threat and block the strait, the repercussions would be quite severe, likely pushing global crude oil prices well above $100 per barrel, or even higher, due to the significant disruption of supply. Technically, if we look at a broader, long-term picture, WTI crude oil seems to be moving sideways with a minor bearish tilt. On a daily chart (see below), the price still has not escaped from the bearish parallel channel. However, due to the latest geopolitical news, the price has managed to rise above the 200-day moving average (MA) and seems poised to break above the critically important 77.60-78.00 area. 'Breaching the $80 handle should not be difficult if the current situation deteriorates sharply', says Kar Yong Ang. 'Continuing destruction of oil infrastructure in Iran, potential U.S. involvement in the war, countries' unwillingness to negotiate and, above all else, Iran's attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz, all of this will have a bullish impact on prices'. Indeed, a break above 80 level, would open the way towards 83.40, 85.20, 87.30, and 90.00 area. Alternatively, in case the hostilities moderate somewhat, other countries—particularly the U.S.—refrain from directly participating in the conflict, and both Israel and Iran express willingness to negotiate, bearish sentiment will immediately kick in. 'I think WTI oil may lose as much as 5 dollars per barrel in the blink of an eye should we see some progress in nuclear negotiations between Europeans and Iranians, which are due to commence in Geneva this Friday', concludes Kar Yong Ang. In this scenario, a break below 71.50 level would allow bears to target 67.80, 64.80 and 61.70. Overall, WTI crude price is now stuck in a broad range between $70 and $80. The move above and below these two levels will essentially indicate if the situation in the region is getting worse or is getting better. The chart below shows potential bullish and bearish targets, marked in green and red, respectively. NYMEX light sweet crude oil (WTI) daily chartSource: TradingView, Octa analysis and calculations ___ Disclaimer: This press release does not contain or constitute investment advice or recommendations and does not consider your investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. Any actions taken based on this content are at your sole discretion and risk—Octa does not accept any liability for any resulting losses or consequences. Hashtag: #Octa The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement. Octa Octa
