What the West calls a war on Iran's nuclear programme was, for tens of millions of Iranians, a war on their cities, their hospitals, their homes.
Before the first missile fell on Tehran, Iran had already endured four decades of crippling sanctions, the systematic assassination of its scientists, and the destruction of its regional allies — all while its diplomats sat at negotiating tables that were repeatedly overturned.
What followed the opening strikes was not a contained military operation but a campaign of sustained bombardment against a sovereign nation — one that killed civilians, collapsed infrastructure, and drove an economy into ruin — while Iran's every act of defence was reframed as aggression.
This is the complete record — told with the civilian cost at its centre.
Israel bombed Iran's consulate in Damascus — a sovereign diplomatic premises — killing senior military commanders and violating international law. Iran's response, the first direct retaliation in 45 years, was a calibrated strike largely designed to be intercepted, with advance warning given through back-channels. It was a message, not a massacre. Israel framed it as an act of aggression.
In the months before open war, Israel conducted a systematic campaign of assassination and bombardment across the region — killing Hezbollah's leadership, destabilising Syria, and dismantling Iran's network of allies. These were not defensive actions. They were the deliberate degradation of a sovereign nation's strategic environment, carried out with Western support and impunity, before a single Iranian bomb had fallen on Israeli soil.
Iran entered indirect nuclear talks in good faith, signalling genuine willingness to accept limits on its programme in exchange for sanctions relief. American negotiators acknowledged real progress. But the talks were conducted beneath the shadow of open military threats — a gun held to the negotiating table. When Trump declared he was "not thrilled" and walked away, it was Iran left without an agreement, not for lack of trying.
Without a declaration of war or UN authorisation, Israel launched a massive surprise assault on Iran — striking nuclear facilities, civilian infrastructure, and targeting scientists in their homes and offices. Hundreds of Iranian civilians were killed in the opening hours. Iran's retaliatory strikes on Israeli cities were its legal right under international law. The Western press called it a war. For Iranians, it was an unprovoked bombardment of their country.
After 12 days of intense aerial bombardment, the ceasefire was mediated by the United States and Qatar. Iran accepted. The agreement was fragile from the start — Israel's government faced internal pressure not to end operations, and US backing for the ceasefire was conditional and hedged. The Strait of Hormuz remained partially restricted. Iran's civilian death toll was in the hundreds. The infrastructure damage was severe. The Western narrative called it a victory. Iranians buried their dead.
As the economic consequences of war and blockade bit deep, Iranians took to the streets in the largest protests since the 1979 revolution. The government's response was a massacre. Estimates put the death toll at over 30,000. The international community issued statements. No sanctions followed. No referrals to the International Criminal Court. The same governments that had bombed Iran's nuclear facilities looked away as its government killed its own people in the streets.
Eight months after the first ceasefire, with diplomacy deliberately exhausted, the US and Israel launched a second, larger assault. The stated objective was no longer nuclear disarmament — it was the destruction of Iran's government. The opening strikes killed Supreme Leader Khamenei and members of his family. In international law, this is the assassination of a head of state. Iran's institutions held. A successor was appointed within hours. The bombing of a country's leadership had not ended the conflict — it had deepened it.
Facing an existential assault on its government and people, Iran widened its response across the region — striking the military infrastructure of states that had provided political cover or basing rights for attacks on Iranian soil. The Strait of Hormuz, Iran's only leverage against an onslaught it could not match militarily, was restricted. Oil markets convulsed. The world, which had watched in silence as Iran was bombed, suddenly paid attention when the price of fuel rose.
Multiple AP sources reported that Russia provided Iran with intelligence on US military movements — a claim Moscow denied. Washington condemned it. Notably absent from the condemnation: any acknowledgment that the US had been sharing intelligence with Israel throughout its assault on Iran. The selective outrage underscored a wider pattern — Iran's defensive actions were treated as provocations, while the actions of its attackers were treated as legitimate security policy.
Iran produced a detailed 10-point peace framework — a serious diplomatic document engaging with the core issues. Pakistan brokered a two-week truce. Iran had, once again, come to the table. Trump initially called Iran's plan "workable," then reversed within days and called it "fraudulent" — the same pattern repeated: Iran engaging in good faith, the US pulling back the offer at the moment of potential agreement.
A nominal ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon was announced — but Israel's Defence Minister immediately declared operations in southern Lebanon would continue. Hezbollah, which had re-entered the conflict after Israel's renewed assault, agreed to the US proposal. It was Israel that kept striking. The Lebanese people — civilians displaced by the hundreds of thousands — found themselves caught between a ceasefire that existed on paper and a military offensive that continued on the ground.
Talks in Islamabad showed genuine movement. Iran engaged seriously with the framework. Then the US imposed a naval blockade — an act of economic warfare — and Trump gave Iran a countdown of days before resuming full strikes. Negotiations cannot succeed when one party conducts them at gunpoint. Iran's Foreign Minister described an agreement as "just inches away," then cited US "maximalist demands" as the reason it collapsed. The cycle of near-agreement and deliberate breakdown continued.
Iran suspended talks on June 1 after Israel resumed bombardment of Lebanon in violation of ceasefire terms. Foreign Minister Araghchi was explicit: a ceasefire on all fronts or no ceasefire at all. Trump was eventually forced to press Netanyahu to stand down on Beirut — but Israeli strikes continued. By June 7–8, Israel paused its direct attacks on Iran; Iran suspended its own retaliatory operations — but neither side acknowledged a formal ceasefire. Five people were killed in an Israeli strike on Tyre on June 8, and Iran warned it would resume operations if Lebanon strikes continued. What began as a ceasefire had become a fragile, conditional pause in which both sides kept their weapons drawn.
The United States conducted new strikes against Iranian radar and drone sites on June 10, hitting targets near Bandar Abbas airport and the port city of Sirik. Iran responded with missile attacks against US military facilities across the Persian Gulf. The IAEA's board of governors — in a US-backed resolution — demanded Iran declare its full enriched uranium stockpile and allow inspectors back in, a site that has been inaccessible since June 2025. A Qatari negotiating team flew to Tehran on June 10 in an emergency attempt to de-escalate. UN Secretary-General Guterres observed that the ceasefire had become "more like a lesser-fire." Both sides are exchanging draft proposals through Qatar on Hormuz access and a broader truce — but with bombs still falling, Iran is, again, negotiating under fire.
{IRAN HAS SHOWN MORE WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE THAN ITS ATTACKERS HAVE SHOWN WILLINGNESS TO STOP}
— OMANI FOREIGN MINISTER, FEBRUARY 2026
The ceasefire is in name only. The US conducted strikes on Iranian radar installations and drone sites on June 10, hitting targets near Bandar Abbas airport and the port city of Sirik. Iran retaliated with missile attacks against US military facilities in the Persian Gulf. UN Secretary-General António Guterres put it bluntly: "This week has brought wider attacks and further deterioration — the ceasefire is more like a lesser-fire." The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors passed a US-backed resolution on June 10 demanding Iran declare its entire remaining enriched uranium stockpile and allow inspectors back into the country.
Talks are now mediated by Qatar. A Qatari negotiating team travelled to Tehran on June 10 to try to de-escalate the renewed military exchanges. Both sides are said to be exchanging draft proposals on extending the truce and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but direct high-level diplomacy has been limited since the April meetings in Islamabad. Iran has conditioned any broader agreement on ending Israeli operations in Lebanon — a condition Israel refuses to accept. Iran's airspace returned to "normal conditions" on June 8 after a brief suspension, but the situation remains volatile. The House war powers resolution, which passed June 3, still awaits the Senate.
The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Shipping traffic is at roughly 5% of pre-war levels. The US has maintained its naval counter-blockade on Iranian ports since April 13. Iran's top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf vowed Iran would "defeat" the blockade. The IAEA has been unable to resume inspections in Iran since the June 2025 strikes and cannot verify the status or location of Tehran's enriched uranium stockpile. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been drawn down by more than 58 million barrels. Russia's President Putin reiterated on June 4 that Moscow is ready to take Iran's enriched uranium — as it did in 2015 — if all parties agree.