SAEDNEWS: During the 12-day imposed war, Iran showcased skills that even intelligence experts with combat experience found astonishing. At the same time, Israel’s long-praised air defense system revealed weaknesses that Tehran will undoubtedly exploit in the next round.
According to the political desk of Saed News, the ceasefire between Iran and Israel following the 12-day conflict appears fragile, and the possibility of another war remains a topic of discussion.
Jassem Al-Azzawi wrote in Middle East Monitor: three months after the immediate ceasefire that ended 12 days of clashes between Iran and Israel, an apparent calm has settled over the Middle East. But beneath this surface, both militaries are assessing an unprecedented exchange of fire that occurred in June, fully aware that any second phase of conflict would be far more severe than the first.
This concern is not hypothetical. Iran demonstrated capabilities that even experienced military intelligence specialists found surprising. At the same time, Israel’s air defense system—long praised—showed weaknesses that Tehran is likely to exploit in any future confrontation. Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities failed to decisively cripple Tehran’s nuclear program.
June War: A Preview, Not the Main Event
The June conflict was a preview, not the main event. Both sides now have a better understanding of the other’s capabilities than before. This knowledge carries dual implications: it can serve as both a deterrent and a source of inspiration.
The most concerning development for Israel was Iran’s launch of Fateh-1 and Fateh-2 hypersonic missiles, which performed far better than expected. On the war’s most intense day, Israel’s missile interception rate dropped from 90% to 65%. Over the 12 days of conflict, Iran fired over 400 missiles, more than 40 of which caused damage or casualties despite Israel’s multi-layered defense system. In a longer conflict, these numbers could rise dramatically.
Dr. Tal Kalisky, an Israeli missile defense expert, stated that hypersonic missile threats change all calculations. While Israel successfully intercepted over 95% of conventional missiles, he acknowledged the unprecedented challenge posed by missiles entering from outside the atmosphere, traveling ten times the speed of sound, and splitting their warheads mid-flight.
Only the “Arrow-3” and “David’s Sling” systems can adjust trajectories mid-air to counter such threats, and both rely on interceptor stockpiles, which were dangerously depleted during the June operations. Israel’s Ministry of Defense reported in early July that the overall success rate against ballistic missiles during this conflict was 86%. The key question remains: what would happen if Iran launched 400 missiles in 24 hours instead of 12 days?
Questionable Nuclear Impact
While the White House claimed in late June that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed, independent analysts provide a more nuanced picture that should concern both sides.
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) examined satellite images from June 14, reporting surface-level damage to the Fordow enrichment facility but emphasizing the difficulty of assessing damage to deeply buried internal structures. CNN’s analysis, citing ISIS, noted that significant harm may have been inflicted on enrichment halls and adjacent areas providing enrichment services.
However, “significant damage” does not equate to total destruction.
Israel’s June campaign introduced a new, dangerous variable that makes any future war far more volatile. This campaign, which involved the assassination of senior military and political commanders and at least nine nuclear scientists, has not escaped the attention of Tehran’s ruling elite. Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, openly admitted he was on Israel’s target list.
The Roles of Russia and China
Russia and China are unlikely to enter a direct war with Israel, but both defend Tehran, adding a complex and dangerous element to the situation. Russia will not deploy ground forces but will provide Tehran with essential equipment.
China’s interests are less overt but potentially more significant. Beijing aims to prevent a broader Middle Eastern war that could destabilize oil supplies and complicate its great-power competition with Washington. China sees Tehran as a key counterbalance to U.S. influence in the region.
Countdown to Conflict
Two critical questions preoccupy policymakers in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran: what will spark the next war, and when should a preventive strike occur? The June conflict resulted from a multilayered chain of assassinations and miscalculations.
Despite damage, Iran’s nuclear program continues to advance. Each month, Iran acquires more and better missiles and develops increasingly sophisticated delivery methods.
We are not in a stable balance. We are on a countdown. The only question is whether it will lead to a negotiated agreement or a war so devastating that the June conflict will be remembered merely as a border skirmish.
Meanwhile, the ceasefire still holds, but in the command rooms of Tel Aviv and Tehran, planners are intensively preparing for a follow-up that everyone expects to be worse than the first round.
