Reactions to the Twelve-Day War

The reactions unfolded in response to Israel’s June 13, 2025, attack on Iran, subsequent Iranian actions, U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and the ceasefire that took effect on June 24. The source record presents a fast-moving diplomatic sequence rather than a single, uniform international response: governments weighed Israel’s security and Iran’s nuclear program against concerns about escalation, civilian protection, international law, and the prospects for negotiations.[1][2][3]

The descriptions used by the parties were fundamentally opposed. Iranian officials cast Israel’s initial attack as aggression and a violation of sovereignty; Israel’s leaders later said the campaign had removed existential threats. After the ceasefire, both governments claimed success, and each reserved the right to respond to future attacks. These public statements shaped the political reaction but do not by themselves establish the military results or settle the legal arguments.[1][2][4]

Sources differ over the date of President Donald Trump’s ceasefire announcement: the Jewish Virtual Library account gives June 23, while Britannica and the Congressional Research Service use June 24. The material does not resolve the discrepancy; this article therefore distinguishes the disputed announcement date from the ceasefire’s implementation on June 24.[2][5][6]

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the June 13 attack with threats of retaliation. He said Israel had extended a “filthy, bloodstained hand” toward Iran and should prepare for harsh punishment. In a later televised message, he called the attack a “great mistake,” said Iran would not let Israel escape unharmed, and promised heavy blows; the Congressional Research Service also reported his warning that Israel faced a “bitter, painful fate.” These were statements by Iran’s leader, not independent assessments of the attack or its effects.[1][7]

President Masoud Pezeshkian described Iran’s response as “legitimate” and “powerful,” called Israel’s attack a violation of international commitments, and said Iran would act to defend its territorial integrity. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in a June 13 letter to the United Nations Security Council, called the attack a violation of Iranian sovereignty and territorial integrity, an act of aggression, and a war crime. He also described it as a “declaration of war” and called on the Security Council to address it. These were Iran’s official characterizations of the conflict.[1][7]

Iranian-aligned organizations voiced solidarity with Tehran. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine condemned Israel’s attack. Hamas called it a “gross violation of international law,” asserted that the “Zionist project” threatened the region, and called for a unified response. Palestinian Islamic Jihad warned that the attack could draw the region into open confrontation. These accounts document the organizations’ statements and allegations, rather than independently establishing their legal claims.[1]

Hezbollah condemned the Israeli attack as a dangerous escalation with American backing. Its secretary-general, Na’im Qassem, said the organization supported Iran and its measures to defend itself. Yet the same account reported that a senior Hezbollah official ruled out a unilateral attack on Israel in response at that point: the group was satisfied with issuing a condemnation rather than taking military action. Lebanese officials, meanwhile, stressed that decisions on war and peace belonged to the state and that Lebanon should remain neutral. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam reportedly asked army commander Rodolph Haykal to tell Hezbollah not to respond from Lebanese territory, and said Lebanon would not be drawn into another confrontation or war with Israel.[1]

Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi called Israel’s attack “blatant, criminal aggression” and voiced support for Iran. On June 15, Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarieh claimed that Houthi missile attacks on Israeli targets were coordinated with Iran’s response. The report did not independently verify the claimed attack results. After the ceasefire, Houthi officials said their movement was not bound by the Israel–Iran truce and would continue attacks on Israel while the Gaza war continued. On June 28, senior Houthi official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said accepting the ceasefire showed that “power is the only language they understand.” Abdul-Malik al-Houthi said the Red Sea would remain closed to Israeli shipping and that the group’s naval campaign would continue.[1][8]

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that Israel would treat Sanaa as it had treated Tehran and respond harshly to Houthi attacks. One commentary reported that Iran remained silent about the Houthi statements and attributed to security officials an interpretation that this might indicate tacit approval or encouragement. That interpretation was not a confirmed Iranian position.[8]

Pro-Iranian Iraqi militias issued statements supporting Iran and calling for action against U.S. forces. Iraq’s government sought to keep them out of the fighting: Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s government reportedly increased intelligence monitoring and security deployments and conveyed that militia action could prompt security countermeasures. The account attributed details of these measures to Iraqi and media reports, including unnamed sources.[1]

Israeli officials described the campaign as a success and said Israel remained ready to enforce the ceasefire or resume action. After the truce was declared on June 24, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was committed to achieving its objectives through diplomacy or force. He said a deal might preserve the campaign’s gains, but absent such an agreement Israel would maintain them through continued enforcement. In other remarks, Netanyahu said Israel would not be “dragged into a war of attrition” and would continue the operation until its goals were achieved; he described the U.S. strike as causing “very serious damage” to Fordow.[4][9]

Netanyahu called the outcome a “historic victory” and said Israel had removed two existential threats: Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic-missile capabilities. He credited President Donald Trump and U.S. forces, claimed the campaign had dealt Iran’s regime the most severe blow in its history, and warned Israel would act again if Iran tried to restore its nuclear program. These were the prime minister’s assessments, not independent findings about the degree of damage or whether all of Israel’s objectives had been achieved. Israel’s government said it had achieved all the objectives of Operation Rising Lion, agreed to the bilateral ceasefire in coordination with Trump, and would respond forcefully to any violation.[9][10]

Israeli opposition leaders generally praised the operation while pressing the government to turn claimed military gains into diplomatic arrangements. Yair Lapid called for an agreement that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, dismantle its missile program, end the Gaza war, and secure the release of hostages. Benny Gantz described the campaign as having produced historic strategic achievements, while warning that Iran’s aims remained. Yair Golan called for scrutiny of whether the ceasefire would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and what consequences would follow a violation.[11]

Not all Israeli political responses endorsed the ceasefire. Opposition leader Avigdor Liberman called it “a discordant and bitter final note” and warned that, without a clear and sharp agreement, Israel might face another war within two to three years in worse conditions. The report also said Netanyahu had instructed government ministers not to comment publicly on the ceasefire.[12]

Polling captured strong support for the attack among Israeli Jewish respondents and markedly lower support among Israeli Arab respondents. An Agam Labs poll conducted June 15–16 found that 83% of Israeli Jews supported the attack, compared with 12% of Israeli Arabs; 68% of Arab respondents were unsure and 20% opposed it. When asked about the operation’s ultimate goal, 56% of Jewish respondents favored destroying Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities even at the cost of all-out war, while 86% of Arab respondents favored pressuring Iran toward a diplomatic agreement.[13]

An INSS poll dated June 22 reported a similar divide: 88% of Israeli Jewish respondents supported the attack, compared with 16% of Israeli Arab respondents; 5% of Jews objected, compared with 68% of Arabs. Satisfaction with the defense establishment’s activity in Iran was reported by 86% of Jewish respondents and 22% of Arab respondents. Very high concern about how the campaign would develop was reported by 22% of Jews and 57% of Arabs. The poll compilation cautioned that sample size, question wording and order, and survey timing and context can affect results; it did not give sample sizes for these entries.[13]

A Walla survey conducted June 24–25, after the ceasefire announcement, found that 52% of respondents supported a ceasefire with Iran, 33% opposed it, and 15% had no opinion. Support was reported among 66% of opposition voters and 34% of coalition voters. The online-panel survey included 583 Israeli adults and stated a maximum sampling error of 4.3%.[14]

A postwar Israel Democracy Institute poll conducted June 29–July 2 asked whether Israel had achieved its goals. Among Jewish respondents, 7% said all goals had been achieved, 53% said most, 29% said only a few, and 7% said none. Among Arab respondents, 15% said all, 23% most, 33% only a few, and 19% none. The cited page did not provide overall totals.[13]

A separate Israel Democracy Institute survey during the final days of the war measured trust in prominent officials. Netanyahu received a 40% trust rating, compared with 68.5% for IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and 67% for Mossad director David Barnea. Researcher Tamar Hermann said the conflict had not produced substantial shifts in public opinion about Netanyahu; trust ratings differed substantially between Jewish and Arab respondents. The survey included 599 Jewish and 146 Arab Israeli respondents, with a stated maximum sampling error of 3.59%.[15]

One June 24 commentary described Israeli public and political reactions to the U.S. strikes and ceasefire as positive, and called some public response “religiously euphoric.” It did not identify particular individuals or provide polling to quantify that description, so it should be understood as the author’s characterization rather than a measured account of Israeli opinion.[16]

U.S. reactions included support for Israel’s operation, disagreement over the U.S. strikes, and debate about presidential authority and the risks of deeper involvement. The Congressional Research Service reported that some members of Congress called Israel’s operations “understandable and justified,” while others called them “alarming” or “reckless” and raised concerns about escalation. In its later account, CRS also recorded congressional disagreement over the U.S. strikes: some members praised them, while others questioned the risks and effectiveness or whether Congress had been sufficiently involved.[2]

The disagreement did not follow party lines consistently. A report described some Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as condemning the U.S. strikes as unauthorized and unconstitutional, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman and Democratic Representatives Ritchie Torres and Josh Gottheimer praised them. Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie opposed the strikes. The report also described Democratic legislative efforts to check Trump’s use of military force.[17]

On June 24, Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized Trump’s decision to strike Iran, warning that it could draw the United States into an “endless war.” She argued that diplomacy was the strategy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and supported a war-powers resolution to limit further military action. In remarks cited in the research bundle, Warren called the prospect of further U.S. involvement “dangerous chaos” and described diplomacy as “the only successful strategy” for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These were her positions, not a statement of the Senate as a whole.[18]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Trump to provide Congress and the public with clear answers about the strikes and their implications for American safety. He argued that no president should unilaterally take the country into a consequential war without a strategy and urged an immediate Senate vote on the War Powers Act.[19]

On June 26, a group of senators introduced S.Res.307 in support of the U.S. and Israeli strikes. It praised Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Rising Lion, described the strikes as important to countering Iranian threats, and condemned Iranian missile attacks on U.S. forces and Israeli civilians. The resolution was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and remained introduced; it was not adopted by the Senate.[20]

The administration’s public line emphasized the ceasefire and diplomacy. At a June 24 State Department briefing, spokesperson Tammy Bruce said Trump was pleased the ceasefire had taken effect. She said the department understood Israel to have agreed and believed Iran had also issued a statement agreeing. Bruce described ceasefires as fragile, said the administration remained committed to diplomacy, and declined to detail the steps that had produced the truce.[21]

The State Department briefing said Iran had launched missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar the previous day and that U.S. and Qatari forces intercepted many of them; Bruce said no Americans or Qataris were hurt. She also said the department had provided information and support to more than 27,000 people seeking guidance about the conflict and had begun assisted-departure flights from Israel on June 21.[21]

A June 24 analysis argued that U.S. reactions were politically divided. It characterized most congressional Republicans as supportive of the bombing, while noting some opposition, and cited a CNN poll as finding Democrats largely opposed to intervention and Republicans mostly in favor, with a sizable Republican minority opposed. It also described Democratic politicians challenging the legality of U.S. entry into the conflict and seeking to require congressional authorization for continued involvement. These points are the analysis’s account and should not be mistaken for a comprehensive official measure of all Americans’ views.[16]

The same commentary said Israeli leaders had publicly described the decision to enter the conflict as America’s choice, while apparently hoping the United States would join. It reported close U.S.–Israeli coordination before and during the U.S. bombing, and suggested that Israel agreed to the ceasefire both because it had achieved its aims and to keep Israeli and American interests aligned. Those explanations were the author’s interpretation, not a stated Israeli-government account of its motives.[16]

The Group of Seven’s position combined support for Israel’s security with calls for restraint and de-escalation. On June 16, its leaders—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and said Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. They also emphasized civilian protection and called for broader de-escalation, including a ceasefire in Gaza. Their statement described Iran as “the principal source of regional instability and terror.” One account said Trump initially declined to sign a draft and signed the final version after references he considered hostile to Israel were omitted.[22]

A separate June 17 briefing described the G7 statement issued late on June 16 as supporting Israel and urging broader de-escalation.[3] Reporting the next day described G7 support for Israel’s right to self-defense and opposition to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon alongside concern that fighting could widen. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised Israel for doing “the dirty work for all of us” and said he respected the Israeli government and military for having the courage to act. The same report said European governments pressed Washington to urge Israel to limit its strikes, reflecting support for the goal of countering Iran alongside concern about escalation.[23]

On July 1, G7 foreign ministers and the European Union’s High Representative reiterated support for the ceasefire announced by Trump and urged the parties to avoid further destabilization. They credited Qatar with an important role in facilitating the truce, expressed solidarity with Qatar and Iraq after Iranian strikes on their territory, called on Iran to resume negotiations and cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and their support for Israel’s security.[24]

European governments generally paired concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions with an emphasis on diplomacy. On June 13, Germany reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its existence and citizens while calling on both sides to avoid escalation. Merz’s government said it was ready to use diplomatic means and that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons should remain the goal. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged all parties to step back and reduce tensions, while French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and called for restraint and diplomacy.[25]

The European Union’s June 15 statement expressed “deepest concern” about the escalation following Israel’s strikes and Iran’s response. It called for compliance with international law and restraint, and warned that further steps could have serious consequences, including a potential radioactive release. The EU said Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon, but argued that lasting security required diplomacy rather than military action and that a negotiated deal was the route to a durable solution to the nuclear issue.[26]

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Netanyahu on June 15 that diplomacy was ultimately the best course on Iran, though she did not call for an immediate ceasefire. On June 16, European foreign ministers urged Araghchi to return to nuclear negotiations with the United States and avoid escalation. A French diplomatic source cited in a report said Araghchi replied that confronting Israel was Tehran’s priority at the time. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump had made a ceasefire offer.[3]

On June 17, the United Kingdom called for de-escalation. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said military action could not end Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and Lammy and Starmer said the British military had not been involved in Israel’s strikes. The United States likewise emphasized that it had not participated in those initial strikes and called for a negotiated settlement. Von der Leyen urged de-escalation and a negotiated solution while affirming Israel’s right to defend itself and saying Iran could never acquire a nuclear weapon.[27]

France and Germany later expressed different emphases over the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. On June 24, Macron said the U.S. strikes violated international law, while also saying France shared Washington’s goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. German Chancellor Merz defended the Israeli and U.S. leaders’ decisions to bomb the facilities even as European leaders called for diplomacy.[28]

After the ceasefire announcement, Germany, France, and the Netherlands welcomed the truce while emphasizing negotiations and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Merz called the sequenced ceasefire a positive development if it held. France said only diplomacy could provide a lasting response to nuclear-security concerns, and Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof called the truce a positive step and negotiations the path to stability. France’s foreign ministry also welcomed the ceasefire and urged Iran to return to negotiations; the Élysée said Iran must never have a nuclear weapon and diplomacy was the only way to ensure that. One report characterized European governments as having been pushed to the margins of the decisions leading to the ceasefire, while still seeking a role in future diplomacy.[29][30]

Russia and China criticized Israel’s initial attack and urged restraint, while also pursuing cautious diplomacy. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan condemned Israel’s “act of force” against Iran and called for hostilities to cease immediately; the account attributed details of their call to the Kremlin. Russia said it was prepared to mediate and that its earlier proposal to store Iranian uranium in Russia remained available. China’s foreign minister contacted both Iran and Israel, and Beijing warned of wider regional instability. One report characterized Russia and China as choosing cautious diplomacy rather than concrete action in support of Iran.[3]

The June 14 reaction report said China condemned Israel’s strikes as violations of Iranian sovereignty. At a United Nations Security Council meeting following the U.S. strikes, China’s ambassador Fu Cong argued that force could not achieve peace and that diplomatic options had not been exhausted.[31][32]

Russia’s public response remained critical. At the Security Council, its ambassador condemned the U.S. action and questioned its rationale by comparing it with the 2003 Iraq weapons claims. A separate report said Russia described the United States and Israel as aggressors and called for an end to escalation without directly acknowledging the ceasefire announcement. These statements differed from the G7’s affirmation of Israel’s right to self-defense.[32][30]

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged restraint at several points. On June 14 he called on Israel and Iran to stop escalating. After the U.S. strikes, he described the bombing as a “perilous turn,” called for an immediate halt to the fighting, and urged a return to sustained negotiations. Pope Leo XIV also appealed for reason, dialogue, and a world free of nuclear threats.[31][32]

At the Security Council, the United States and Israel defended the U.S. strikes on nuclear sites. U.S. Acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea called on Iran to end its nuclear-weapons effort, while Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon described the action as a necessary last line of defense. Iran’s ambassador called the strikes unlawful and argued that Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy had been used as a pretext for aggression. Britain’s ambassador said military action alone could not produce a durable solution and urged restraint and renewed negotiations. These were competing official arguments, not an adjudication of legality by the Council.[32]

Several Arab governments condemned Israel’s June 13 attack. The Congressional Research Service listed Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, and Iraq among those condemning it. The Gulf Cooperation Council said Israel’s actions violated international law, called for efforts to stop what it termed Israel’s “aggression,” and urged avoidance of escalation. A separate report described Arab governments as quickly condemning the strikes, though it did not identify all governments or speakers behind the quoted characterizations.[7][33]

The United Arab Emirates’ foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, warned that “uncalculated and reckless steps” could spill beyond Iran and Israel. Syria was described as notably silent. The source record therefore shows both public criticism of the attack and concern that the conflict could spread, but does not establish a comprehensive account of every Arab government’s response.[33]

Qatar’s role became prominent around the ceasefire and the Iranian missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base. One report, citing three diplomats briefed on the matter, said Qatar intervened on behalf of the Trump administration and persuaded Iran to agree to a ceasefire. Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq condemned Iran’s attack on the U.S.-run base. The same report said the attack strained Iran’s relations with its Arab neighbors. On July 1, G7 foreign ministers credited Qatar with an important role in facilitating the truce.[28][24]

Arab responses to the ceasefire were not uniform. Gulf and North African governments generally welcomed it as a step toward de-escalation; Saudi Arabia cautiously endorsed the truce and condemned Iran’s earlier missile attack on a U.S. base in Qatar. In Egypt, an unnamed Foreign Ministry source warned that a ceasefire excluding other active fronts was inherently unstable, while President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said continued regional escalation threatened everyone.[34]

Arab media commentary expressed relief that direct fighting had stopped but skepticism about what the ceasefire resolved. Commentators cited in one report argued that Gaza and other regional conflicts had been left outside the arrangement. Al Jazeera analyst Marwan Bishara called it “a truce between generals, not a treaty between peoples.” The account characterized Arab coverage as varied and shaped by different political alignments and concerns.[34]

A separate analysis said that “most commentators in the Arab world” acknowledged significant Israeli results, including a strategic gain from U.S. strikes on nuclear sites that Israel could not have achieved alone. Because the article did not identify the commentators or establish that they represented Arab governments or the wider public, this is best treated as the analysis’s broad characterization, not a measure of regional opinion.[35]

N12 also quoted several Arab commentators offering contrasting interpretations and predictions. Yemeni commentator Hussein al-Wadعي called June 13 a historic turning point for Iran and the “resistance axis,” and argued that the conflict had damaged myths about Iranian power and resistance. Iraqi commentator Iyad al-Dulaimi predicted that the ceasefire would not end the confrontation and that Iran faced a more difficult period of internal political and social pressure. Emirati commentator Amjad Taha praised the U.S. use of power and portrayed Israel as strong and Iran as weak. These politically charged judgments and predictions are commentary, not established findings about the war’s consequences.[36]

Sources date Trump’s ceasefire announcement to June 23 or June 24.[5][6] The truce took effect on June 24, after Iran’s June 23 missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base. The Congressional Research Service said that, after further salvos, Israel and Iran indicated they would comply with the ceasefire while reserving the right to defend themselves. The State Department described the truce as fragile.[2][21]

The first hours of the truce were contentious. Britannica describes an arrangement of 12 hours of cessation by Iran, followed by another 12 hours by Iran and Israel, and reports serious violations that killed 16 people in Iran and four in Israel before the truce continued to hold under U.S. pressure.[6] Other accounts describe an Israeli strike near Tehran after the ceasefire announcement and a final Iranian missile barrage. Trump publicly criticized Israel for continuing strikes after the announcement and objected to its response to Iranian missiles, telling Israel to bring its pilots home. Netanyahu’s office said Iran had launched missiles after the truce took effect and described Israel’s later strike on a radar near Tehran as a response to violations. The accounts differ in emphasis over responsibility for the ceasefire violations.[5][37]

Netanyahu said on June 24 that Israel had achieved its goals and complied with the truce after a final strike on a radar system near Tehran. He thanked Trump for helping defend Israel and remove what he described as the Iranian nuclear threat. The Congressional Research Service reported Netanyahu’s claim that Israel had removed “the threat of annihilation by nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.” These were statements of Israeli policy and assessment, not an independent verification of the campaign’s results.[2][10]

Iran’s leadership and state media offered a sharply contrasting account. Khamenei said Iran had defeated Israel and the United States, claimed Iranian forces had inflicted heavy damage on Israel, and asserted that U.S. strikes had caused no real damage to Iranian nuclear facilities.[38] In a separate recorded statement, he congratulated Iranians on what he called victory, claimed Israel had nearly collapsed under Iranian blows, and said the United States had failed to achieve meaningful results.[39] Iranian state media framed Israel as having started the war, the United States as having joined it, and Iran as having ended it through missile attacks. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said resistance had forced the enemy to accept defeat and warned that the armed forces remained ready to respond to further aggression. These were official claims, not independent assessments of who prevailed.[40]

Iranian officials’ accounts were not entirely consistent on the damage to nuclear facilities. Khamenei claimed the attacks had not disrupted Iran’s nuclear operations and that U.S. intervention had been ineffective. Araghchi, however, acknowledged that Iranian nuclear facilities had sustained “significant and serious damages.” The contrast was noted in the reporting, but the material supplied here does not independently establish the extent of the damage or its impact on Iran’s capabilities.[5]

Other postwar statements stressed the possibility of renewed fighting. On June 26, Iranian Chief of the General Staff Abdolrahim Mousavi warned Israel and its supporters that Iran was monitoring their movements and threatened a severe response to another “strategic mistake.” On June 28, IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naeini said that an attack on Iran’s interests or assets would prompt a response that was “different, stronger and more dangerous.” Araghchi said on June 26 that Iran had informed relevant parties that any attack would receive an immediate response.[38][41]

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization head Mohammad Eslami said on June 24 that Iran was assessing damage and planned to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure to prevent disruption to production and services. A commentary reported that senior Iranian political officials were expected to return to nuclear negotiations, while there was no indication Iran would give up uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. The latter account should be read as the article’s report of expectations and assessment, not a definitive statement of a settled negotiating position.[35]

An INSS analysis assessed that, after the ceasefire announcement, Iran’s regime preserved internal cohesion and presented a united front against an external threat. It said public anger, shaped by images of civilian casualties and destruction and by state media control, was directed mainly toward Israel rather than the Iranian regime. This was the article author’s analysis of political and public responses, not a direct measure of the views of individual Iranians.[4]

Other reporting described a more mixed picture. N12 quoted researcher Hamidreza Azizi describing, among supporters of the Iranian government, recognition of the gap in capabilities and scale of damage, as well as a need to reorganize and rebuild. He also described trust in Khamenei’s decisions alongside anger and distrust, including attempts by some to blame Pezeshkian’s government for supposedly forcing the supreme leader to accept the ceasefire. N12 said official media presented the ceasefire as a victory while Azizi described frustration and humiliation among some Iranians.[36]

The Jerusalem Post reported that Pezeshkian praised national unity at funerals for people he called “martyrs of Israeli aggression,” and cited state news agency IRNA reporting his statement that serving the Iranian people was an honor. The same article cited reports of post-conflict arrests and an unnamed source in Tehran who said some Iranians welcomed attacks on regime leaders. It also described a video circulating among younger Iranian dissidents in which an unidentified woman urged people to use the moment to end the Islamic Republic. The source did not independently verify the video or establish that these accounts represented Iranians broadly.[42]

A GAMAAN survey conducted in late September 2025, as reported secondhand by CAMERA, found that 42% of respondents said anger at the Islamic Republic was their strongest emotion during the war, compared with 30% who reported anger at Israel. CAMERA also said 63% believed the conflict was between Israel and the Islamic Republic rather than the Iranian people. These figures are reported through CAMERA’s account of the survey, not from the survey’s own publication in the material available here.[43]

Diplomacy remained a recurring theme before, during, and after the ceasefire, although governments differed on whether military action was necessary or lawful. The EU argued that negotiations were the only route to lasting security on the nuclear issue; the G7 and several European governments combined calls for diplomacy with support for Israel’s security and the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.[22][26] Russia and China emphasized mediation and de-escalation while criticizing the strikes.[3][27]

Before the ceasefire, Macron said Trump had made a ceasefire offer.[3] The State Department later declined to give details about the diplomatic steps that produced the truce.[21] Accounts of Qatar’s intervention relied on diplomats briefed on the matter, rather than a public, detailed description of the negotiations.[28]

On June 24, Macron said U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites violated international law, while emphasizing France’s shared aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Merz defended the decision to bomb the facilities, and European leaders continued to call for diplomacy. This divergence reflected different emphases within European governments, rather than a single, uniform European position on the strikes.[28]

In a July 1 statement, the G7 foreign ministers urged Iran to resume negotiations and cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They also reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and expressed support for its security. The statement connected the ceasefire to a broader diplomatic effort, while showing that support for Israel and calls for renewed negotiations were presented together.[24]

Israel’s opposition likewise emphasized the challenge of converting the campaign into durable agreements. Lapid’s proposed terms included limits on Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, an end to the Gaza war, and the release of hostages. Gantz and Golan praised the operation while stressing that Iran’s aims remained and that the ceasefire’s effect on Iran’s nuclear ambitions required scrutiny.[11]

The reactions to the Twelve-Day War were defined by a contest over the meaning of the ceasefire and the claims made about its outcome. Israeli leaders described the campaign as a historic success that removed existential threats; Iran’s supreme leader and state institutions presented Iran as the victor and warned of future retaliation. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s acknowledgment of significant damage to nuclear facilities sits alongside Khamenei’s claim that the nuclear program had not been meaningfully harmed. The available accounts record these competing statements but do not establish a definitive judgment on the war’s military or strategic result.[10][39][5]

The ceasefire also exposed a gap between stopping direct Israel–Iran hostilities and resolving wider regional conflicts. Arab commentators cited in reporting questioned whether an agreement that left Gaza and other fronts outside its scope could produce lasting stability. Houthi officials explicitly said they were not bound by the truce and threatened to continue attacks on Israel while the Gaza war continued. Those statements indicate that the ceasefire did not, in the accounts provided, end all regional threats or disagreements.[8][34]

The domestic reactions were also divided. Israeli polling consistently showed a large difference between Jewish and Arab respondents in support for the attack, satisfaction with the campaign, and concern about its development.[13] U.S. political responses split over both the strikes and the president’s authority to use force, with critics and supporters found across party lines.[2][17] Reports of Iranian public opinion ranged from official claims of unity to accounts of dissent and anti-regime sentiment; the cited reports and surveys differ in method and cannot be treated as a single representative account.[42]

International reactions combined competing legal claims with shared concern about escalation and nuclear security. Some governments and officials condemned Israel’s attack or the U.S. strikes as violations of sovereignty or international law; others affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and stressed the need to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.[7][22] Calls for negotiations, restraint, and a durable settlement appeared alongside support for military action or explicit defense of it. These responses document the political stakes of the conflict, but the claims of legality, victory, and effectiveness remained disputed in the sources.[32]