View of Israel attacks on Tehran at dawn on Friday, June 13, 2025. Mehr News Agency. Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0).

On June 22, Donald Trump launched an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan using B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines.

Before the attack, Trump expressed on social media his demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” a sentiment that echoes Harry Truman’s after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Interestingly, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee had referred to Trump as “the second Truman,” calling him a savior and a messianic figure.

GBU-57 struck the nuclear sites. Images revealed several craters measuring approximately six meters in diameter. However, because of the underground nature of the facilities, the full extent of the damage remains unclear. According to some reports, Iran evacuated the sites and transferred 400 kilograms of uranium out of the facility. Iran may have known about the attack and possibly coordinated the timing.

Some analysts interpret this attack as a strategic maneuver between Iran and Israel. A message has reportedly been conveyed from Washington suggesting that both sides have achieved their goals: Iran’s nuclear program has been halted, and Israel has reasserted its military prestige in the face of Iran’s missile strikes. But does this gesture signify a ceasefire? Or perhaps I should ask, will this be a lasting peace? Today, Trump announced that both Iran and Israel have violated the ceasefire, but he placed harsher blame specifically on Israel. Is the truce merely a pause for Israel to regroup, only for us to witness another futile clash later? Is the clash dictated by Trump’s social media posts?

In response, on June 23, Iran launched missiles toward Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Despite the evacuation of the base, one of the U.S. Air Force's central command hubs, one missile reportedly landed without causing any casualties.

The confrontation between Iran and the U.S. was cautious, tightly contained, and highly calculated. The choice of Qatar, a country with relatively friendly relations with Iran, suggests a subtle duality in the unfolding strategy.

Meanwhile, Trump posted, declaring the need for regime change in Iran. Shortly after, Reza Pahlavi held a conference in Paris where he announced a 100-day plan for regime transition.

Yet in the early hours of June 24 (near dawn in Iran), Trump posted again, this time hinting at a strange and ambiguous form of ceasefire between Iran and Israel, one marked by a 6-to-12-hour exchange of fire. After some back-and-forth on social media, officials from both sides implicitly confirmed the ceasefire as temporary. Israel took advantage of the situation and, in the early hours before dawn, bombed various parts of Tehran. The bombs struck both military targets and residential areas, hitting locations indiscriminately.

Following the attack, Israeli officials claimed that Iran had violated the ceasefire by launching a missile toward Israel, a claim that Iranian authorities firmly denied. Later that day, Trump reacted angrily, criticizing both sides —and especially Israel — for breaking the ceasefire. Although Israeli officials have not yet issued any official response, it appears that, for now, the exchange of fire has stopped. This ceasefire is effective only temporarily. Some Israeli and Iranian officials even signaled that the clashes may continue in the future until their objectives are achieved,  despite Trump’s warnings.

If this ceasefire announcement is no“taco moment” of impulsivity, the question remains: What are the terms of this truce?

As Israeli strikes continue, and with Iran’s airspace effectively under Israeli control, its air defenses disabled, and nuclear facilities in crisis, can the two countries truly agree to a cessation of hostilities? We must consider this in the context that Israel has never truly abided by any agreement so far, and there remains the possibility that, even if a peace deal is reached, Israel could launch further attacks on Iran, especially given the significant damage already inflicted on Iran’s defense infrastructure. Such strikes would be part of a broader strategy to maintain a high level of tension, instill fear, and preserve aerial superiority — a tactic Israel previously employed in Lebanon. The question is, could such a strategy be feasible in a country as vast and complex as Iran?

What will become of uranium enrichment? How will these developments affect Lebanon, Palestine, or even Yemen? Could the current limitation on Iran’s regional reach pave the way for broader reconciliation? Will negotiations over governmental restructuring in Tehran take place with direct U.S. involvement?

The solutions are far from straightforward. One thing is clear: the Islamic Republic will not remain what it was. The magnitude of the military blows, the deep intelligence infiltration by Mossad, and the erosion of legitimacy and popular support pose critical challenges to the regime’s survival. Will the Iranian people now play a more decisive role?

On the other side, will Netanyahu’s political life continue, or will this confrontation simply repeat itself in the near future? Nothing is certain. And yet, what matters most is that the people of Iran suffer as little as possible. But how will we address these war-related traumas, on top of all previous crises?

Can the Islamic Republic, by turning toward its people and respecting human rights, build even a modest internal peace? Could the issue be solely attributed to Israel's aggression, or might it also involve the Islamic Republic’s policies?

Israel tried hard to provoke mass protests or even a civil war with its attacks, but the people did not take to the streets. Perhaps repression and fear played a role, but it’s also possible that the deep wounds inflicted by the regime led many to cling to the notion of safeguarding their homeland.

These are not rhetorical questions. They demand answers from Iran’s intellectuals. In the current situation, and even before it, the Iranian intellectual community has made little progress in healing the country’s deep wounds and addressing its long-standing problems. I don't deny the regime's role, but can we really absolve the intellectuals? Are all the problems really just about power and weapons? That is why some of these difficult questions must also be directed at them. How can political transformation occur without foreign intervention? Despite the lessening of social fractures and divisions, misguided policies on hijab, economics, and security persist, and Israel cannot bear the blame.

The current crisis was also made possible by Iran’s internal conditions: the silencing of the people’s voice, the focus on domestic repression instead of counterintelligence, and the authoritarian leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, all of which created fertile ground for Netanyahu to act.

When Spanish dictator Francisco Franco asked Nazi Germany to bomb Guernica on April 26, 1937, he later walked proudly through the ruins — ruins he himself had orchestrated — declaring them a symbol of liberation. This kind of “Francoism,” whether manifested from within a country or imposed from outside, is a tragedy inflicted not by some distant foreign invader, but by those who claim to rule in the name of the people.

When in Nazi-occupied Paris, Picasso was asked by a Gestapo officer, “Did you do this?” pointing at his famous “Guernica” painting, the Spanish painter responded, “No, you did.”

View of the destruction of Guernica in 1937, Spain. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain

We must not repeat the Guernicas — neither in Palestine nor in Tehran. But let us also remember: the oppressive rulers on our side are equally culpable in this mourning. And the story, of course, is far from over.

Rulers who, by weakening the people, suppressing human capital, failing to invest in a proper defense system, and turning their backs on the very idea of “the people,” created an image of a vulnerable nation, paving the way for a ruthless aggressor like Netanyahu to attack Iran. They are the ones who contributed to the fragmentation of Iranian society. And yet, many of the people — intellectuals, the poor, and the marginalized — stood by this land. Despite being humiliated and tortured, they still did not allow a foreign enemy, a force that brought nothing but destruction, to deepen its aggression.

I hope a day will come when this sacrifice is finally acknowledged — not as a defense of the regime, but as a resistance against a brutal figure like Netanyahu. It’s easy to understand their sacrifice: even if Guernica recurs, even if it persists, history will forget the Francos.