12-Day war and the future of Middle East deterrence, diplomacy
By Alam Saleh
Professor at Australian National University
The June 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, widely referred to as the 12-Day war, marked one of the most significant security flashpoints in the Middle East in recent years. Though brief, the war profoundly impacted Iran’s military doctrine, reshaped regional security thinking, and recalibrated diplomatic trajectories. While it did not produce a decisive strategic shift, it acted as a pressure test for existing deterrence frameworks, alliances, and regional fault lines. The following article synthesises the key takeaways regarding Iran’s deterrence posture, regional and global responses, and the evolving role of Gaza in Iran’s broader strategic calculus.
Iran’s deterrence doctrine: strengths and limits
The 12-day conflict underscored both the effectiveness and constraints of Iran’s deterrence approach. Tehran demonstrated its ability to retaliate against Israel using ballistic missiles and drones. This visible response preserved the credibility of Iran’s deterrence: that it can impose meaningful costs on its adversaries if provoked.
However, Iran also avoided full-scale escalation, notably focusing on select targets while enhancing its missile and air defence capabilities. This marks a shift toward a more calibrated deterrence model, less about maximal coercion, and more about survivability, strategic ambiguity, and escalation control. Iran appears to be moving away from high-risk confrontation and instead adopting a more calculated strategy that combines conventional military strength with deniable operations and increased investment in defense systems and infrastructure.
Regionally, this measured response slightly elevated Iran’s prestige among sympathetic populations and political actors, who saw Tehran as capable of defending its interests. Still, the exposure of Iran’s vulnerabilities, including the ability of Western and Israeli forces to strike Iranian targets, tempered the perception of Iranian invincibility. Iran’s deterrence remains intact, but it is clearly evolving.
Impact on Arab and global security policies
The war did not fundamentally transform Arab or global security alignments vis-à-vis Iran, but it did prompt incremental recalibration. The Persian Gulf states, particularly those ones who had normalised relations with Israel, reassessed the risks of deeper entanglement. Many adopted a hedging strategy: continuing security cooperation with the US while also advocating for diplomatic restraint to prevent wider conflict.
States with closer ties to Iran, such as Iraq and factions in Lebanon, sought to maintain delicate balancing acts, wary of being drawn into a broader regional confrontation. On a global level, the US and European powers emphasised crisis management and deterrence measures, including maritime security, intelligence sharing, and nuclear safeguards, rather than embracing wholesale containment strategies that could spark open warfare.
The strategic takeaway is clear: while no major realignments occurred, regional and international actors are increasingly focused on conflict containment and damage control, rather than confrontation or appeasement.
Gaza’s role in Iran’s diplomatic positioning
Any durable Gaza agreement, involving ceasefires, reconstruction, or prisoner exchanges, carries important, though not decisive, implications for Iranian power and diplomacy. Gaza’s fate matters to Iran, but it is one variable among many. A peace process there may moderate some of Iran’s tactics but is unlikely to shift its overarching regional posture.
Page 2