In Tehran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the recent strikes as a “criminal violation of Iranian sovereignty,” stressing Iran’s right to self-defense. His words echoed public reactions across the city, where anger mixed with fatigue after years of sanctions and economic strain.
Iran’s leadership signaled the attacks would not be treated as isolated events. Some citizens demanded swift retaliation, while others feared the cost of a wider war. This split highlights Iran’s dilemma: defending national pride while avoiding dangerous escalation.
In contrast, Washington and Jerusalem described the operation as a defensive necessity. U.S. officials said the strikes targeted nuclear threats and protected allies, while Israeli leaders voiced relief that firm action was taken. Together, they framed the move as a strategic effort to shift the regional balance, despite internal debates about long-term risks.
European governments reacted with alarm. Leaders in London, Paris, and Berlin urged restraint, warning of a potential “chain of retaliation.” Their concern reflects past conflicts where limited strikes spiraled into prolonged wars, triggering energy shocks, cyber risks, and refugee flows.
At the United Nations, diplomats spoke quietly of a fragile global order and strained international law. As emergency talks loomed, unity seemed unlikely. Meanwhile, oil prices jumped, markets wobbled, and social media filled with competing narratives. The coming decisions may determine whether tensions ease—or harden into a conflict shaping the next decade.
