Three months have passed since the twelve-day war between Iran and Israel. The world now recognises that a second round of this unresolved conflict is inevitable, with neither side having emerged as the clear victor.
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has launched an aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at weakening Iranian society and undermining its unity. Politicians, military experts, and Israeli media outlets are all engaged in shaping public opinion and maintaining psychological pressure.
In contrast, Iran has been working to address the vulnerabilities exposed during the last confrontation. Through large-scale military manoeuvres and strategic preparations, Tehran is signalling that it is ready for the next phase of confrontation. Both sides — Iranian and Israeli — no longer see another war as a distant possibility but rather as an approaching certainty.
In August, Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir made it clear when he declared, “We are not finished with Iran yet.” He described the June twelve-day war as merely “the first stage of the operation.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded firmly on the platform X: “If aggression is repeated, we will respond with greater force — in a way that cannot be concealed.”
Iranian media, especially the Tasnim News Agency, which is closely aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, continues to publish reports and analyses that highlight the high likelihood of renewed confrontation. Both Israel and Iran, through their statements and media efforts, are preparing domestic and international audiences for another war.
Military Manoeuvres
Following the twelve-day war, Iran conducted major exercises under the name “Sustainable Power 1404” on 20–21 August in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean.
The manoeuvres involved the Moudge-class frigate IRIS Sabalan and the missile-launching vessel IRIS Ganaveh. During the drills, Iranian naval forces carried out live-fire tests using Nasir and Qadir anti-ship missiles.
Admiral Shahram Irani, commander of Iran’s Navy, emphasised that the central aim of the exercise was to test operational readiness in real combat conditions. The drills included electronic warfare counter-measures, drone operations, and anti-submarine missions. Naval units manoeuvred across a wide zone stretching from the Strait of Hormuz into the deeper waters of the Indian Ocean, signalling Tehran’s intention to expand its naval presence beyond coastal waters into the high seas.
Iran has also carried out several missile tests since the war, most recently announcing another test just last Thursday.
On the Israeli side, a surprise military exercise was conducted on 10 August — ten days before Iran’s drills. The exercise began at 5:30 a.m. and lasted for about five hours, designed to test Israel’s ability to transition rapidly from routine conditions to full mobilisation in the event of a multi-front war.
The Israeli simulation covered seven scenarios:
- Infiltration from three points on the Jordanian border.
- A drone attack on Ramon Airport.
- Armed cells in the West Bank, including one reaching Highway 6.
- Rocket fire from Lebanon.
- A Yemeni strike on an offshore gas field.
- A drone strike.
- A missile strike from Iran.
The results revealed delays in troop deployment to the Jordanian border. Adjustments were made to mobilisation plans and command integration. Following the drills, the Israeli army initiated a broad readiness assessment of all combat units, with announcements that such surprise exercises will be held regularly.
Iran and the IAEA
During the war — which began with Israel’s strike on Iran — Tehran accused Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of paving the way for Israeli attacks.
After the ceasefire, Grossi demanded access to inspect Iranian nuclear sites. Tehran refused, stating that it had lost confidence in both Grossi and the IAEA. Parliament even passed a law prohibiting IAEA inspections.
Yet shortly afterwards, the Iranian government allowed inspectors into the Bushehr nuclear plant to oversee fuel replacement, sparking anger among conservative politicians who saw it as a breach of the new law. Foreign Minister Araghchi explained that the decision had been made by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council to avoid giving Israel an excuse for renewed attacks.
Grossi himself warned in August that “failure to open nuclear sites to the Agency could lead to a new war.”
With Germany, France, and Britain threatening to trigger the “snapback” mechanism to re-impose UN sanctions on Iran, Cairo hosted a meeting between Araghchi and Grossi, mediated by Egypt. The two sides signed an agreement to resume technical cooperation, including inspections.
At the IAEA’s 69th General Conference in Vienna (15–19 September 2025), Grossi hinted at the dangers of military escalation: “When the Agency can fulfil its mission, doubts and fears vanish. But if our work is restricted, international peace and security face grave risks.”
Iran has continued intense diplomatic efforts in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, to prevent the activation of snapback sanctions.
European Pressure and Sanctions
Despite Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, Germany, France, and Britain remain adamant about restoring UN sanctions through the snapback process.
Iran’s leadership views this European insistence as an existential threat. While Foreign Minister Araghchi continues dialogue with Grossi, the Supreme National Security Council issued a strong warning on 20 September, declaring that European measures would result in suspension of cooperation with the IAEA.
The Council’s statement even highlighted the risk of military escalation: “The reckless steps taken by the three European states regarding Iran’s nuclear issue were analysed in connection with military operations and sanctions.”
Such European manoeuvres place Iran in a complex position — balancing diplomacy with preparations for harsher counter-measures. If sanctions are restored, Tehran may end all cooperation with the IAEA and even withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move that would greatly heighten the risk of war.
The Question of Enriched Uranium
The most contentious issue is Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched beyond 60 per cent. Israel and the United States repeatedly use this as justification for potential attacks.
Iranian officials stated during and after the war that the uranium had been moved before hostilities and was not present at the sites bombed by Israel and the U.S.
President Donald Trump claimed after the strikes that American forces had destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities completely, while Israel boasted of delaying Tehran’s nuclear ambitions for years. Yet Iranian officials countered that their uranium remained intact and under Iranian control — undermining the credibility of those claims.
This contradictory narrative continues to fuel tension. Iran’s confident declarations of resilience after the war provide Israel and the United States with fresh pretexts for future aggression. Iranian military leaders’ assertive rhetoric often complicates diplomacy, forcing Foreign Minister Araghchi to constantly answer the question: “Where is the uranium?”
In a televised interview on 13 September, Araghchi finally stated: “Our uranium remained beneath the rubble of the bombed nuclear facilities.”
The Mounting Danger
The region now stands at a dangerous crossroads: military manoeuvres, escalating rhetoric, European pressure for sanctions, and Iran’s new decisions have created a volatile environment.
Israel openly calls for regime change in Iran and agitates for the Iranian people to rise against their government. In Tehran, military commanders such as General Mousavi vow: “We will answer any threat from the enemy with unimaginable strategic surprises.”
On 22 September, seventy-one Iranian parliamentarians sent a letter urging the Supreme National Security Council and government leaders to reconsider Iran’s military doctrine and nuclear weapons policy.
Should Europe succeed in triggering UN sanctions, Iran may respond by leaving the NPT altogether — a move that could set the stage for a broader, longer, and more devastating war involving Israel and the United States.
Although Russia and China oppose European moves, their support for Iran has so far remained limited to verbal declarations without concrete action.
A Possible Surprise?
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian travelled to the United States to attend the 80th UN General Assembly. Before his trip, he met with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who offered guidance and prayers for success.
Reports from Iranian sources suggest that Ayatollah Khamenei authorised Pezeshkian to meet U.S. President Donald Trump. If such a face-to-face meeting occurs, it would mark a major breakthrough in the nuclear file and reduce the likelihood of war.
A precedent exists: in 2013, then-President Hassan Rouhani spoke directly with U.S. President Barack Obama during the UN General Assembly in New York.
Yet the current path — involving the U.S., Europe, and Israel — still fuels escalation rather than easing it. Whether diplomacy will deliver a surprise breakthrough or whether the region will slide into a catastrophic war, remains the defining question.
