Lessons for Ukraine from the 12-Day Iran-Israel War

The 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025 was the culmination of a decade of tension in the Middle East. Will it be possible to localize the acute phase of this long-standing confrontation? 

It all started with an Israeli special operation on Iranian territory, which led to large-scale but targeted strikes aimed at suspending Iran's nuclear program. These were targeted killings of both Iranian military leaders and nuclear physicists involved in the production of nuclear weapons.

Facilities important to the nuclear program were destroyed, warehouses were destroyed, and strikes were carried out on Iranian military facilities responsible for the production of ballistic missiles. Ultimately, the US joined the war in its final stage, striking a key facility for Iran's nuclear program in Fordow with strategic aviation.

Recovering from the initial shock, Iran attempted to strike back. Within hours, hundreds of Shahed kamikaze drones and ballistic missiles were launched at Israel. However, the vast majority of threats were successfully destroyed by Israel's multi-layered air defense system (Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow 3) with the support of the US and British air forces. There was little real damage, and few casualties.

Overall, Israel's military actions were surgically precise. Politically, Iran tried to present itself as the leader of the “resistance to the West,” but in fact revealed its vulnerability: isolated, without effective support from its allies, unable to ensure even its own air defense. Israel demonstrated its technological superiority.

Ultimately, the US president announced that the parties had agreed to a ceasefire. This regime was subsequently violated, but in general, both sides recognized that it was in effect. In the end, Iran, the US, and Israel all declared themselves victorious.

Who really won?

Iran claims that Israel's goal was to change the Iranian regime, and since this did not happen, they were the ones who won. Israel, in turn, emphasizes that regime change in Iran was not the goal of Operation Lion's Roar, but rather the main goal was to deprive the Iranian government of the means to create nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

According to official sources in Israel and the US, these goals were achieved. At the same time, no one particularly doubts that Iran will not stop there and will continue to develop nuclear weapons, based on the situation in which they now find themselves. Therefore, this war is likely to be repeated in the foreseeable future, which will be measured in years rather than decades.

The War Showed that Russia Is a Weak and Unreliable ally for Iran

An important factor in the conflict was the role that Russia did not play. Despite constant statements about a strategic partnership with Iran, Moscow did nothing to support its ally at the most critical moment. Moreover, the Kremlin limited itself to vague diplomatic phrases and effectively distanced itself from the conflict. This became a crack in the imaginary “anti-Western alliance” of authoritarian regimes.

It is telling that at the beginning of this year, Moscow and Tehran signed a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement.” It was even ratified by their parliaments, but this document did not become a basis for Putin to help his partner. Even a “comprehensive and strategic” one.

At the moment of war between Israel and Iran, the “axis of evil” turned out to be a sham. China remained on the sidelines, limiting itself to general statements, and Russia, although it managed to make quite a few statements, from a practical point of view only observed. For the whole world, this is a signal of exceptional importance. Russia is an unreliable ally. It is incapable of providing support even to such a strategic partner as Iran. Russia previously acted in the same way towards another partner, the Assad regime in Syria. Again, many words but little action. Clearly, even the dictators closest to Putin can no longer feel too confident.

This also confirms that Russia is weakened both militarily and politically. Having spent enormous resources on the war against Ukraine, Moscow has lost its ability to project power beyond its immediate geopolitical space. And the allies that remain in the Russian Federation are forced to acknowledge that at a critical moment, they will be left alone with the enemy.

Thus, the Israeli operation became a test not only for Iran, but also for the Kremlin. And Russia failed this test. This creates new opportunities for the diplomatic isolation of Moscow and the discrediting of its claims to the role of an alternative pole of influence in the world.

How “Peace Through Strength” Became Possible

One of the main lessons of the 12-day war is that the concept of “peace through strength” is not Cold War rhetoric, but a working tool in the 21st century. Israel has shown that proactive defense, complemented by targeted retaliatory strikes, can stop aggression without getting bogged down in a protracted war.

The lesson for Ukraine's partners is clear: the aggressor can and must be stopped not only by defense, but also by offensive tools that allow the price for its actions to be raised. Israel was able to deliver precise and at the same time deep strikes against Iran, avoiding massive losses and without losing legitimacy in the international arena. This is a precedent that legalizes asymmetric responses.

The US and its allies supported Israel not only with words — they provided critical military and intelligence assistance in real time. The Western coalition effectively implemented the concept of collective deterrence. A logical question arises: if such support is possible for Israel, why not implement it in an even broader format for Ukraine?

Ukraine is in a similar situation today: under pressure from an authoritarian regime that is trying to impose its will by force. Only a decisive, strategically calibrated response, backed by Western support, can force Russia to de-escalate. Israel's experience shows that an aggressor retreats when it is hit hard, accurately, and unexpectedly. This principle works for any autocracy.

If the West wants peace in Europe, it must go beyond the logic of limited assistance. Supplies of long-range weapons, strengthening the aviation component, expanding sanctions pressure and cyber operations — all these are components of “peace through strength” that can be adapted to the Ukrainian context.

What Conclusions Should the World and Ukraine Draw from this Short Phase of the Conflict?

Despite all the risks, the 12-day war between Israel and Iran did not prove to be a disaster for global stability, but rather a lesson in geopolitical realism. It demonstrated that even the most acute conflicts can be localized with a clear strategy, technological superiority, and allied cooperation.

For Ukraine, this war has at least three key conclusions. First, authoritarian regimes are vulnerable and can be restrained — not only by diplomatic means, but also by force. Moreover, Russia has no real allies, and its isolation is not rhetoric but a strategic fact. In addition, peace through force is now a reality that must be accepted as part of the defense doctrine of modern Ukraine.

Ukraine only needs to convince the West that a similar approach is needed to defeat Moscow — one that is decisive, coordinated, and technologically superior.

Petro Oleshchuk, political scientist, Ph.D, expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank