Bombing for peace: Who won, who lost in the Iran-Israel war

Bombing for Peace, a contradiction in terms, was a NATO concept, practised at the turn of the last century to deal with recalcitrant Serb forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999 for their human rights' violations in Bosnia and Kosovo, respectively. But this concept was bereft of UN sanction, and resulted in unjustifiable death and destruction, and thus was mothballed 26 years ago.

 

Now, it appears, a modified version of this concept has been revived by the United States, by joining the Israel-Iran war by bombing Iran's three nuclear enrichment facilities on June 22, 2025, and then calling them to implement an immediate ceasefire— which, surprisingly, was heeded to, and appears to be working. 

 

On June 22, six B2 'Spirit'  bombers of the US Air Force dropped twelve 'bunker buster' bombs, reportedly valued at about $6 billion, and 30 Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles, against the three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Though there are some reports that the enriched uranium may have been removed by Iran from these facilities before the strikes were conducted, President Donald Trump decided that the US military has done enough for Netanyahu's war against Iran, and called for an immediate ceasefire, to prevent tit-for-tat escalation.

 

As per latest reports, it appears that both Iran and Israel have implemented the ceasefire, and that after  allegations of breaches by both sides, a fragile ceasefire has now come into place, thus indicating the possibility that the 12-day war may have suddenly ended.

 

It may be recalled that the Middle East region was thrown yet again into a  dangerous predicament on June 13, 2025 when Israel launched an unprovoked war against Iran, starting with the carpet bombing of Iranian military and nuclear sites and the concurrent assassination of Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.  But then, not unexpectedly for Israel, in response to its bombing of Iranian targets, Iran decided to retaliate with precision guided missiles, of which it appeared to have an unlimited supply. Hundreds of buildings and critical infrastructure in Israel, including ports and oil refineries, were destroyed.

 

Further, when the US bombed Iran on June 22 in response to Israel's desperate calls, it would have been aware that Iran could, if it so decided, close the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, causing global economic havoc, while also sanctioning retaliation by its proxies against multiple US military bases in the Middle East region, which could result in casualties among the 40,000 troops stationed there.

 

Through all the developments and tensions of this 12-day period,  India, which has strategic ties with all three countries, had been treading cautiously, as it called for de-escalation, while repatriating its students from Iran and a large number of workers from Israel.

 

The three protagonists in this war, the US, Israel and Iran, appear generally satisfied with their share of outcomes in the war, which they can project among their people as claims for victory. The US can claim that it came to the assistance of Israel, its ally, and that the US bombers could provide a decisive punch in support of Israel's long-term security without incurring any casualties to American men or material.

 

Israel can claim that it destroyed Iran's air defences, its military capabilities, including 50 per cent of its missile launchers, and killed important military commanders and nuclear scientists. It was also able to draw the US into the war on its behalf, thus strengthening the strategic alliance.

 

On the other hand,  Iran can claim to its people and the wider Islamic world that, unlike any other of Israel's adversaries in the past, it successfully stood its ground against the combined might of the US and Israel, and gave as good as it got—by destroying Israel's cities and infrastructure. It may also claim, at least internally, that it has been able to retain substantial military capacity as well as  nuclear enrichment capabilities.

 

Relatedly, there is an interesting aside for people of our subcontinent. As a prelude to the bombing of Iran by the USAF, President Trump, on June 18, invited recently promoted Field Marshal Asim Munir, the visiting Pakistani Army Chief, to the White House for a private lunch, which aroused immense  interest among the Indian public at large and the military in particular, with regard to what transpired therein.

 

Now it has become reasonably clear that Trump could have requested overflight rights for the US bombers as well as logistic use of Pakistani airbases for the intended attacks against Iran, in case of need.

 

There would also have been a veiled warning to the Pakistani military to not consider undertaking any actions inimical to US and Israel, at the behest of Iran, as was being speculatively reported in the media. Possibly, in exchange for Pakistan's cooperation, Munir may have sought an assurance of active mediation on the Kashmir issue, which, if it occurs, will be a worrisome development for India.

 

The UN secretary general condemned the US bombing of Iran and called for immediate de-escalation, at a time that there were calls to escalate by extremist elements on both sides—in Iran, to retaliate economically by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and strike militarily against American and Israeli interests and, in Israel, to continue the war, to further destroy Iranian military capabilities.

 

Thus, President Trump's diktat to both sides was a welcome development, and consequently, economic planners the world over have taken a welcome breath of relief.

 

In sum, the need of the hour is to de-escalate and bring the Israel-Iran conflict to an immediate and final close. Clearly, the US needs to desist from any further military action against Iran citing Israeli objectives like 'regime change'—in the interests of preventing further bloodshed and restoring peace in the region.

 

Equally important, Israel needs to stop its campaign in Gaza, which overall, has led to severe loss of image for the country not only in the global south but also among countries of the  global north. Unless peace and normalcy is restored, contrary to warmongering interests of hardliners on all sides, there is a strong possibility that Iran and Israel would destroy each other materially and that human casualties would also rise to unacceptable levels. To that extent, in case the ceasefire holds, it would not be wrong to conclude that President Trump's timely and limited intervention has pushed both sides off the escalation ladder—and provided opportunity to seek nonviolent ways and means of dealing with each other.

 

Possible implications of the US intervention and the consequent  de-escalation:

 

1. The military impact

Israel had started the unprovoked war with a sense of over-confidence. But it is Iran which appears to have won a moral victory by having delivered unprecedented and extensive punishment to Israel, after penetrating the latter's BMD systems, as visible to the entire Middle East and the rest of the world. The related danger is that Iran is in a position to rebuild its military capacity speedily, with assistance from China, Russia and North Korea.

 

More concerning is that, given the experience of the unjustified attacks on its nuclear facilities by Israel and the US, Iran could feel incentivised to develop nuclear weapon capability and may consider withdrawing  from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 

That would be an ominous development, considering that its land-based delivery systems are already in place. Also, the ongoing internal crackdown in Iran to identify those who had fallen prey to inducements by Israeli intelligence agencies is likely to lead to large-scale human rights violations.

 

Further, in case the Iranian military or Iranian proxies like the Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militias or militant sleeper cells, launch retaliatory military attacks on American forces, bases or interests in the Middle East region, the war is likely to re-commence and the situation is likely to escalate again.

 

American  bases in Iraq would be particularly vulnerable. On the other hand, through all this, Israel's sense of  military vulnerability will increase and it may be forced  to respond violently again in the future. Needless to emphasise, a positive approach by Israel and the US towards Palestinian statehood is likely to go a long way towards mending fences with other countries of the Middle East. Israel will need to understand that military means cannot be the only way to resolve political issues and problems.

 

2. The political impact

Actions of the US appeared isolated from its European allies throughout this 12-day war. Further, perception of its untrustworthiness may increase, considering that both Israel and the US commenced their attacks against Iran while negotiations to avoid war were still ongoing. On the other hand, Iran's standing in the Middle East appears to have been strengthened. Politically, Iran stands to gain in standing in the global south. And as both Russia and China are likely to step up support for rebuilding Iran's military, they too would appear to gain in global influence, which would be at the cost of Western interests and influence.

 

3. The economic impact

The Iranian parliament approved the closing of the Strait of Hormuz in the aftermath of the US bombing, though it was left to the Supreme Leader to take a decision on the matter. Also, the Houthis appeared to be restarting attacks in the Red Sea. Iran used the threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea to put pressure on the US and the rest of the world to bring about an early ceasefire. Cost of oil is likely to be restored to normal levels, now that the war appears to have ended. Stock markets also appear to be stabilising. Nonetheless, it will take more time before freight rates and insurance premiums for shipping come down to desirable levels.

 

4. The security impact

Conflicts of this nature have a way of resulting in unintended consequences in the realms of security. In the past, the US-Iraq war spawned Islamic State, and the US-Afghanistan war strengthened the Taliban. In a similar vein, the US intervention in Iran could generate negative responses towards US in the Middle East. In the immediate future, US personnel deployed in the Middle East could be specially vulnerable to random attacks by proxy forces which are supportive of Iran.

 

5. The impact on India

The fact that the Israel-US-Iran war appears to have ended is a welcome development, as India's diplomatic tight-rope walking was taking its toll. Politically and diplomatically, India needs to use its influence among all parties to push for a long-term solution to the Palestinian problem, which lies at the heart of all the turmoils in the Middle East. Economic threats appear to have been rescinded, for now. Consequently, stock market fluctuations seem to be stabilising. Students repatriated from Iran and workers from Israel can go back and resume their studies or work.

 

So, at the end of this episode, in case peace continues to hold in the Middle East, it may not be wrong to conclude that bombing too can have peaceful effects.

 

The writer was Vice Chief of the Indian Army.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.

Middle East