Fire from the Skies — The First Salvo in the Iran-Israel Missile War
Introduction: A War Foretold, A Region Engulfed
In a conflict that many feared but few truly believed would arrive so suddenly, the skies above the Middle East erupted with fire as Iranian missiles rained down on Israel’s major urban centers, including Tel Aviv and Haifa. Within hours, the war that had simmered in proxy confrontations and veiled threats for over a decade escalated into a direct and open military exchange between two of the most formidable powers in the region. While the world stood witness, the rules of engagement, regional stability, and global security were rapidly rewritten.
By June 16, 2025, four days into the fighting, Iran had launched a strategic missile offensive targeting Israel’s most densely populated cities. In retaliation, Israel continued a coordinated aerial campaign focused on dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military leadership. Civilian casualties mounted on both sides, with harrowing stories emerging from residential neighborhoods reduced to rubble, and hospitals struggling to cope.
The outbreak of war also catalyzed a new diplomatic crisis, placing the conflict at the forefront of international dialogue—including the G7 summit in Canada, where world leaders urgently convened to discuss de-escalation. Yet, beneath the headlines and urgent appeals for peace, it became increasingly clear that neither Tehran nor Jerusalem had any immediate intention of backing down.
Iran’s Offensive: Precision, Provocation, and Propaganda
In the early hours of Monday, as Israel’s cities were still cloaked in darkness, Iran launched a coordinated missile attack that struck multiple strategic targets. Tel Aviv and Haifa, symbolic and strategic in equal measure, bore the brunt of the assault. Initial reports confirmed at least eight fatalities and over a hundred injured in Israel, with residential buildings obliterated and critical infrastructure damaged.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for the strikes, boasting that a new tactical method had enabled them to exploit weaknesses in Israel’s sophisticated multi-layered defense system. According to Iranian state media, this included causing Israeli missile-defense layers—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3—to conflict, reducing their efficacy and allowing Iranian warheads to breach urban airspace.
Among the targeted zones were residential neighborhoods, a bustling market near Shuk HaCarmel, and power stations near the Haifa port. Video footage captured in the aftermath showed explosions lighting up the skyline, shattered windows in high-rise hotels, and terrified civilians scrambling for cover as sirens wailed.
Civilian testimony painted a haunting picture of life under missile fire. “It’s terrifying because it’s so unknown,” said Guydo Tetelbaun, a 31-year-old chef in Tel Aviv, whose apartment building’s shelter door was blown in by the force of a nearby blast. “This could be the beginning of something long and horrifying—or the end of everything as we know it.”
Israel’s Retaliation: Targeted Decapitation and Strategic Bombing
While Iran’s missiles made global headlines, Israel’s military had already initiated a robust counteroffensive. Its strategy was clear: dismantle Iran’s ability to wage a long war by neutralizing key figures and facilities at lightning speed.
The Israeli Air Force began conducting high-risk, high-reward bombing runs deep into Iranian territory, reportedly eliminating four top intelligence officers, including the head of the IRGC’s elite intelligence division. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed troops at Tel Nof Airbase, declaring the country’s unwavering mission: “We are on our way to achieving our two main objectives—eliminating the nuclear threat and eliminating the missile threat.”
This two-pronged campaign—diplomatic signaling paired with targeted assassination—was vintage Israeli military doctrine, sharpened by decades of clandestine operations and preemptive warfare. For Netanyahu’s government, this war was not just a battle for territory or deterrence, but a moment to settle what it views as a generational existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
NPT Withdrawal Bill: Iran’s Diplomatic Counterstrike
While Israeli jets pounded Iranian bunkers and airbases, Tehran opened a new front—not on the battlefield, but in international law. The Iranian parliament, in a move loaded with diplomatic symbolism, announced that it was preparing legislation to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Though the bill’s passage could take weeks, the message was immediate and resounding.
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, was careful to frame the announcement with nuance. He emphasized that while the bill was being drafted, any decision to leave the NPT would undergo extensive consultation. Still, the optics were powerful: Iran, long accused by the West of clandestine nuclear ambitions, was now openly signaling a potential severance from international nuclear oversight mechanisms.
Western nations, particularly the U.S. and its European allies, expressed alarm. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had already reported Iran in violation of NPT obligations just a week earlier. Now, Tehran’s legislative maneuver threatened to undo decades of precarious nuclear diplomacy. For Israel, it seemed to confirm their worst fears—and justified their aerial campaign in the eyes of its war cabinet.
The Civilian Toll: Two Nations Bleeding
Amid the geopolitical theater and military grandstanding, the real cost was being paid by civilians on both sides. In Iran, official death tolls reached at least 224, with 90% reportedly civilians. The Farabi Hospital in Kermanshah Province was among several facilities struck, sustaining extensive damage and further complicating emergency response efforts. Iranian currency markets reacted swiftly and brutally—its currency depreciated over 10% against the dollar within days.
In Israel, 24 people had been killed by Iranian missile strikes, all of them civilians. Emergency services battled fires near Haifa’s port and conducted search-and-rescue operations in Tel Aviv, where entire apartment blocks had collapsed. The conflict’s asymmetric nature—Israel wielding technological and intelligence superiority, Iran deploying saturation missile tactics—made traditional notions of a “front line” obsolete. Nowhere was safe.
The targeting of civilian centers brought swift condemnation from humanitarian organizations, but both governments showed no sign of restraint. In Tehran, officials arrested dozens of alleged Israeli spies and saboteurs—moves that appeared aimed at both domestic audience control and international optics. In Israel, government officials doubled down on the legitimacy of their counterstrikes, citing a direct and existential threat to national survival.
In modern warfare, bombs are matched by broadcasts. As Iranian missiles struck Israeli cities and Israeli jets retaliated with strategic precision, a parallel front opened in press rooms, foreign ministries, and international forums across the globe. Governments, news agencies, and intelligence analysts scrambled not only to assess facts on the ground—but to shape the world’s understanding of them.
Nowhere was this clearer than in Canada, where G7 leaders—already convened for a scheduled summit—found themselves at the center of a rapidly escalating geopolitical crisis. What had been intended as an economic agenda focused on trade realignment, AI governance, and climate action, was immediately hijacked by the urgency of Middle East conflict. What followed was an extraordinary weekend of emergency diplomacy, shifting alliances, and media spin—each nation grappling with the most urgent question: How far will this war go?
Diplomatic Shockwaves at the G7: A World Holding Its Breath
The 2025 G7 Summit in Halifax, Nova Scotia, began under heavy security and a tense cloud of expectation. Hours after Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv and Haifa, the air was thick with anticipation. Would world leaders unite in condemnation? Would they urge restraint, or choose sides? Could diplomacy pre-empt further regional meltdown?
U.S. President Donald Trump (in his second non-consecutive term) was the first to speak publicly, calling the conflict “deeply concerning” while expressing hope for a possible deal. But unlike his previous Middle East peace overtures, this time his tone was more cautious—he stopped short of issuing ultimatums or naming red lines. A senior State Department official later said that the administration was divided between applying maximum pressure on Iran and seeking a quiet channel for de-escalation.
The European Union, represented by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Amelie Scholz, took a more interventionist stance. In a rare joint statement, they warned that Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) “would constitute a grave threat to global stability” and urged Israel to adhere to proportional responses to avoid “regional conflagration.”
Britain, under Prime Minister Anika Patel, offered to host emergency negotiations in Geneva, echoing historical attempts to mediate the Iran nuclear crisis. But officials were frank in admitting they had limited leverage in a conflict that had already entered an advanced kinetic phase.
Japan and Canada, while expressing concern over oil markets and regional volatility, mostly aligned with the Western consensus of urging de-escalation—without assigning direct blame. The conspicuous absence of consensus on the source of escalation made headlines.
China and Russia: Strategic Silence and Tactical Positioning
While G7 leaders postured in front of cameras, two nations watched from outside the summit with deep strategic interest: China and Russia.
Moscow, still navigating the consequences of its prolonged war in Ukraine and its complex economic pivot eastward, issued a carefully worded statement accusing the West of double standards. It stopped short of supporting Iran outright, but the Kremlin’s language emphasized “the right of sovereign nations to defend their nuclear sovereignty against foreign aggression.”
China, which has increasingly positioned itself as a peace broker in the Middle East, called for “immediate cessation of hostilities” and offered to convene an emergency session of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to address regional stability. However, Beijing’s real concern was economic: with 40% of its oil supply passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the possibility of a wider regional war threatening shipping lanes was a strategic nightmare.
Both nations also ramped up internal security in their own Muslim-majority regions, anticipating ripple effects of anti-Israel and anti-Western sentiment.
Oil, Markets, and Economic Turbulence
The missiles had barely stopped flying before global markets reacted. Brent crude surged past $120 per barrel for the first time since 2022. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange suspended trading temporarily as panic selling gripped investors. Iran’s rial collapsed to record lows against the dollar, and Gulf markets—from Dubai to Riyadh—took a short but sharp dip.
Multinational corporations with exposure in the region, especially in energy, infrastructure, and cybersecurity, activated crisis response protocols. Insurance premiums for shipping vessels spiked overnight, while airlines rerouted flights to avoid Middle Eastern airspace.
Energy ministers at the G7 scrambled to issue a coordinated statement of oil reserve releases to cushion the shock—but analysts were unconvinced. “This isn’t just a supply shock,” said one Goldman Sachs strategist. “It’s a risk premium surge, and the longer this war drags, the higher that premium gets.”
Narratives in Conflict: Global Media and Regional Bias
Parallel to the military and diplomatic drama, the battle of narratives raged through television screens, social media feeds, and newspaper headlines.
- Western media (Reuters, BBC, CNN, The New York Times) broadly portrayed Israel as acting in “self-defense” against a growing nuclear threat from Iran. While acknowledging civilian casualties, reports leaned heavily on Israeli government sources and emphasized Iran’s history of proxy warfare.
- Iranian state media (Press TV, Fars News Agency) framed the missile campaign as a “sacred retaliation” against decades of Zionist aggression and targeted assassinations. The killing of civilians in Haifa was not denied—but presented as an “inevitable consequence of Israeli militarization of urban zones.”
- Al Jazeera, with its pan-Arab editorial stance, adopted a middle path. Its reports gave voice to Iranian civilians displaced by airstrikes and interviewed Israeli victims of missile attacks—focusing heavily on humanitarian consequences, though critics accused the network of soft-pedaling Iran’s NPT maneuver.
- Indian, Turkish, and Southeast Asian media exhibited more varied reactions, shaped by their governments’ official positions and domestic sensitivities around religion, energy dependence, and diaspora communities.
In short, the war became a mirror—reflecting the ideological and strategic leanings of each nation’s press. It also amplified disinformation risks: AI-generated deepfakes of bombings and manipulated audio clips of leaders circulated widely, especially on Telegram and X (formerly Twitter), sowing confusion.
Public Opinion and Protests: Streets Stir as States Hesitate
Around the globe, the war reignited deeply held public passions. In cities like Paris, New York, Jakarta, and London, protesters took to the streets—some waving Palestinian flags in solidarity with Iran’s defiance, others holding banners supporting Israel’s right to self-defense.
In Tehran, massive state-orchestrated rallies praised the missile strikes, with chants against Israel and the U.S. echoing through Azadi Square. Meanwhile, underground footage from Shiraz and Mashhad showed smaller, quieter gatherings condemning both the regime’s military priorities and the loss of civilian lives.
In Israel, public sentiment was more unified. The government declared a national emergency, and Tel Aviv residents queued at blood donation centers and volunteered in civil defense efforts. “There is no left or right right now,” said a survivor interviewed by Channel 12 News. “Only Israelis.”
Meanwhile, in Arab capitals like Cairo and Amman, governments walked a tightrope—condemning violence in general terms, but wary of domestic unrest if they appeared too close to either side. The fear of a wider Arab uprising remained palpable.
Long before missiles lit up the skies over Tel Aviv and Haifa, before Iranian hospitals crumbled under retaliatory airstrikes, and even before global diplomats rushed to issue ceasefire statements — a more secretive, insidious war had already begun.
This was not a war of tanks or jets, but of keyloggers, wiretaps, deep-cover agents, and digital footprints. A conflict waged in shadows by spies, assassins, cyber operatives, and intelligence agencies whose allegiance was often untraceable. By the time the world watched missiles fly on live TV, the covert conflict had already inflicted deep wounds on both nations.
This is the story of the invisible frontlines — a parallel war that turned embassies into outposts of sabotage, diplomats into handlers, and national crises into opportunities for psychological warfare.
Iran’s Intelligence Collapse: Breaches from Within
In the days following Israel’s first strikes on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic facilities, the Iranian regime scrambled to explain an embarrassing question: How did Israeli jets evade layers of air defenses and hit targets with surgical precision?
The answer came not through official statements, but via state media leaks and semi-official Telegram channels: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had suffered what insiders called the “worst internal breach since the 1979 revolution.”
By Monday evening, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry reported the arrest of over 40 individuals allegedly tied to Mossad operations. Among them were:
- A former IRGC logistics officer accused of transmitting coordinates of sensitive missile depots.
- Two civilian contractors working in Natanz and Isfahan facilities, suspected of sabotaging radar grids.
- A telecommunications engineer who had embedded spyware in government routers — providing Israeli cyber units with real-time surveillance access.
Tehran called it “a Zionist spy ring” and publicly displayed some of the alleged saboteurs on national TV. But the very need for such media theatrics revealed a deeper fear: the regime had been penetrated at multiple levels, not only by foreign operatives, but by its own disgruntled insiders.
Mossad’s Kill List and the “Decapitation Strategy”
While Iran reeled from intelligence failures, Israel’s famed Mossad agency continued executing what one former official called its “decapitation strategy”: systematically eliminating senior Iranian defense and intelligence leaders believed to be central to the nuclear program.
In one dramatic operation confirmed by IDF spokespeople, four top Iranian intelligence figures were killed in drone and missile strikes. These included:
- Brigadier General Reza Saberi, head of IRGC Intelligence Research
- Colonel Mahdi Rahimpour, in charge of overseas sabotage operations
- A cyber unit commander stationed in Kermanshah
- A logistics coordinator allegedly tied to Hezbollah funding pipelines
The strikes were not random. Each hit occurred in safehouses, underground facilities, or fortified zones—suggesting precise human and digital intelligence beforehand.
“Each loss sets back Iran’s capabilities by months,” a senior Israeli defense official told Haaretz. “We are not at war with Iran’s people. We are at war with its weapons program and its shadow army.”
Revolutionary Guards Strike Back: Sabotage on Foreign Soil
As Israeli jets hammered command bunkers, Iran’s Quds Force — the IRGC’s elite external arm — struck back. But not with missiles. Instead, sleeper cells in at least six countries were activated.
In Istanbul, Turkish authorities thwarted an attempted bombing outside the Israeli Consulate. In New Delhi, Indian counterterror agencies intercepted communications suggesting planned attacks on Jewish cultural sites. In Nairobi, two Iranian operatives were arrested with drone parts, cash, and forged UN credentials.
But the most successful Iranian counter-operation occurred in Erbil, Iraq — where a Mossad safehouse believed to be coordinating air operations was blown apart in a drone strike, killing three Israeli contractors. Tehran proudly claimed the hit as “vengeance without borders.”
The Cyber Front: Invisible Missiles of Modern War
Parallel to ground assassinations and missile barrages, an equally dangerous war was unfolding in cyberspace.
Israel’s Unit 8200, among the world’s most advanced cyber warfare divisions, launched an intense digital offensive aimed at paralyzing Iranian defense systems. Targets included:
- Tehran’s traffic grid — causing massive blackouts and gridlock
- Missile telemetry systems — delaying key launches
- State media websites — briefly replaced with messages showing Iranian civilian deaths in Haifa and Tel Aviv
Iran retaliated with attacks on Israeli financial institutions and health systems. Although most were neutralized, one breach successfully disabled hospital software in Be’er Sheva for six hours, forcing a temporary patient evacuation.
“Missiles make the news,” said one cybersecurity analyst. “But data kills silently.”
Internal Unrest in Iran: The Price of External War
As strikes intensified, Iran’s internal cohesion began to fray. With over 200 dead, most of them civilians, and a currency in freefall, unrest rippled through cities far from missile zones.
In Shiraz, women held flash-mob protests holding photos of children killed in retaliatory airstrikes. In Mashhad, shopkeepers staged a silent strike, refusing to open shutters in mourning. On social media — despite heavy surveillance — coded hashtags like #TanhaMimanim (“We Stand Alone”) trended among the youth.
The regime cracked down harshly. Internet blackouts, mass arrests, and intensified patrols by Basij paramilitary units were reported. But the damage to public trust was irreversible. Even religious strongholds began showing signs of fatigue.
In one powerful moment, the usually pro-regime Grand Ayatollah Rezvani was heckled by seminary students in Qom who accused him of “sacrificing the nation for a phantom bomb.”
Tehran was losing not just its outer security, but its inner moral control.
Also Read : As Israel-Iran Conflict Escalates, Arab Citizens in Israeli Town of Tamra Flee to Shelters
