The airstrikes launched by Israel on June 13, 2025, under the “Rising Lion” operation targeting Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, mark a dangerous new threshold in the long-standing tensions in the Middle East. On the same day, Iran’s retaliatory strikes involving hundreds of missiles and drones have pushed the region into an atmosphere of full-scale conflict. Global powers such as the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Russia, and China have promptly called for restraint. This analysis aims to provide a multifaceted assessment from geopolitical, diplomatic, economic, military, media, and international relations perspectives.
1. Geopolitical Perspective
On the morning of June 13, 2025, Israel launched an air operation named “Rising Lion,” targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure by alleging that Iran’s nuclear program had reached an “irreversible point.” The Israeli Air Force reportedly concentrated on uranium enrichment facilities such as Natanz, Fordo, and Arak. It also targeted command centers belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and missile launch sites. The strikes additionally hit bases in southern Syria where Iran-backed militias are stationed. Weapons depots controlled by the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and Hezbollah positions near the Lebanese border were also targeted. According to sources from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, these targets constitute the core military network supporting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israel’s strategy is a preemptive military operation aimed not only at the nuclear infrastructure but also at regional threat elements that protect or support this infrastructure.[1] Israel targets not only Iran but also its proxy actors in the region, such as Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, and the Syrian regime. Iran described the attack as a direct declaration of war and immediately retaliated.
2. The EU’s Stance: Diplomatic Deadlock and Strategic Inadequacy
Following Israel’s airstrikes on Iran on June 13, 2025, the EU quickly issued diplomatic statements in line with its traditional reflexes. Leaders such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint. They warned that a large-scale war would have devastating consequences for both regional and global stability.[2]
The EU’s diplomatic moves, when evaluated from a “crisis management” perspective, can be interpreted as an effort to preserve international legitimacy. Indeed, EU officials recognize Israel’s “right to self-defense,” but emphasize that this right must be used in a limited and proportional manner within the framework of international law. However, the structural weaknesses that fuel perceptions of inaction and geopolitical ineffectiveness limit the impact of these diplomatic statements on the ground.
The EU’s inability to develop a collective foreign and defense policy in such crises has once again brought structural problems to the agenda. The ineffectiveness of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in practice raises questions about the EU’s capacity to contribute to the regional and global security architecture. There are serious inconsistencies, particularly among key members such as Germany, France, and Italy, in terms of threat perception and methods of intervention. This makes it difficult for the EU to develop a common reflex.
The EU’s structural dependence on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in its security policies weakens its claims of strategic autonomy. Despite initiatives such as the “European Strategic Compass” that have emerged since the Russia-Ukraine War, the EU has not yet built its own crisis response capacity. This shortcoming is clearly observed in the Israel-Iran war as well. While Brussels’ diplomatic discourse is strong, its capacity to generate military or economic pressure remains limited.
Domestic political dynamics are also a significant factor shaping the EU’s stance. In Germany, especially among conservative circles, pro-Israel rhetoric has gained strength. This has made it difficult for Berlin to adopt a balanced position. France, on the other hand, although traditionally inclined to maintain sustainable diplomatic relations with Iran, has initially taken a stance closer to the Western bloc in this war rather than assuming the role of a “balancing mediator.” This has made it more complicated to build a common position within the EU.
Finally, the EU’s energy dependency and economic interests have also been decisive in the context of this crisis. The potential impact of possible new sanctions on Iran on the energy supply chain has been met with concern, particularly in Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Greece, and Spain. This situation demonstrates that the EU is caught between a “value-based foreign policy” and an “interest-based realpolitik” in the face of the crisis.
The geostrategic position of the Strait of Hormuz has once again come to the forefront in this conflict. Iran’s statements suggesting it may target oil tankers passing through the strait have created a sense of panic in global energy markets. Brent crude oil has exceeded 130 dollars. Prices of natural gas, gold, and even food commodities have rapidly increased. Since Europe obtains a large portion of its energy imports through this route, it has begun to search for alternative supply lines. There has been a growing tendency to turn to sources such as Norwegian gas and the Algerian pipeline.
Possible Israeli ground operations also pose a threat to pipelines, maritime trade, and logistics routes in the region. If new sanctions against Iran come onto the agenda, energy and trade relations with actors such as China and India may also be reshaped. This situation has the potential to affect global economic balances.
3. Diplomatic Developments and the Role of the United Nations:
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an emergency meeting immediately after the events and urged all parties to exercise “maximum restraint.” The fact that the United States did not directly intervene following Israel’s airstrikes is considered a striking development. A divergence between the EU and the US is also observed in the coordination of diplomatic efforts. While the US proposes harsher security measures, the EU advocates a softer, dialogue-based approach. This situation also reveals the weakness of the Western bloc in developing a common foreign policy.
The reflection of the conflict in the media can be considered one of the classic examples of information warfare. Western media presents Israel’s strike within the framework of “preemptive defense,” while Iran’s state media portrays it as an “imperialist attack targeting the revolution.” These opposing narratives have a significant impact on shaping public perception.
On social media platforms, disinformation, fake visuals, and false information are spreading rapidly. Campaigns conducted particularly on platforms such as Telegram, X, and TikTok are making the international dimension of the crisis even more complex. In this environment, the importance of media literacy and digital security measures becomes evident once again.
This military escalation between Israel and Iran is a multilayered crisis that threatens not only the security of the two countries but also global energy and diplomatic stability. Although the EU’s desire for mediation is high, the lack of deterrence on the ground limits the impact of this intention. For the international community to produce a joint and effective response to this crisis, an integrated policy set encompassing not only diplomatic discourse but also energy, security, and media strategies is required. In particular, the restructuring of nuclear negotiations and the establishment of a new regional security mechanism under the UN framework are essential for lasting peace.
[1] “Tehran fires ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv-as it happened”, The Times, https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-iran/article/israel-attacks-iran-latest-news-nuclear-site-qltfw980m, (Date Accessed: 14.06.2025)
[2] “‘Deeply alarming’: World leaders urge restraint as Israel pummels Iran”, Politico, https://www.politico.eu/article/world-leaders-restraint-unprecedented-israel-iran-strikes-keir-starmer-benjamin-netanyahu-antonio-guterres-donald-trump/, (Date Accessed: 14.06.2025).
