ISTANBUL, June 22, 2025
Iran’s top diplomat decries US military action
Iran warns of harsh response.
- Iran condemns U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities.
- Foreign Minister Araghchi calls for U.N. Security Council intervention.
- President Pezeshkian labels the U.S. the “primary instigator.”
- Trump defends the strikes as “very successful.”
The recent U.S. strikes have ignited a firestorm of condemnation, with Iran’s response spearheaded by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who warned of “everlasting” and “perilous” fallout; what consequences does Iran foresee?
Araghchi delivered his fiery remarks on Sunday at the 51st session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul. He also amplified his message through online posts, ensuring a wide reach for Iran’s grievances.
Accusations and demands
Araghchi didn’t mince words, holding Washington squarely responsible: “The warmongering and lawless Administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression.”
He accused the U.S. of colluding with Israel, further escalating tensions. “The U.S. military aggression against the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a U.N. member state-carried out in collusion with the genocidal Israeli regime-once again laid bare the depth of depravity that governs American foreign policy,” Araghchi stated.
The Iranian politician called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, citing a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. He warned that inaction would only exacerbate the crisis, “Silence in the face of such blatant aggression would plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos.”
President Pezeshkian’s condemnation
Echoing Araghchi’s sentiments, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian also condemned the Trump-ordered strikes, branding the U.S. as the “primary instigator.”
“This aggression showed that the United States is the primary instigator of the Zionist regime’s opposed actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pezeshkian saeid. “Even though they initially tried to deny their role, after our armed forces’ decisive and deterrent response and the Zionist regime’s clear incapacity, they were inevitably forced to enter the field themselves.”
Pezeshkian urged the Iranian public to unite in the face of attacks from Israel and the U.S.
Diplomacy off the table?
Prior to June 13, when Israel launched initial strikes on iranian nuclear and military sites, Iran and the U.S.had been engaged in talks surrounding a potential nuclear deal.
Those talks were suspended because of the active conflict. Araghchi said diplomacy is no longer an option following the U.S. military action. “they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities… We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defense,” he said.
Araghchi’s warnings at the council meeting mirrored his earlier reaction shared on social media. “The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the U.N. must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,” Araghchi said early Sunday morning.
“In accordance with the U.N. charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”
Trump defends the strikes
Trump, meanwhile, has hailed the U.S.’ attack on three key Iranian nuclear sites as “very successful.” The U.S.deployed B-2 stealth bombers,targeting sites in Fordow,Natanz,and Esfahan.
“A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” Trump said in his initial announcement.
Trump addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night,flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He asserted that the U.S. bombers had “totally obliterated” the nuclear sites and called the mission “a breathtaking military success.”
Trump instructed Iran to move toward peace, warning that the U.S. would pursue other targets with “speed” and “precision” if not.
U.S. military assessment
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine appeared with Secretary Hegseth at the Pentagon on Sunday morning to share more information about the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Hegseth expressed hope that the attack on Iran’s Fordow facility “achieved destruction of capabilities.” However, gen. Caine clarified that it is indeed “way too early” to comment on whether Iran still retains some of its nuclear capabilities, as investigations and debriefs are ongoing.
Both officials stated that the U.S. is taking “proactive” steps to protect U.S. troops in the Middle East region.
Did you know? The U.S. strikes mark a major turning point. The U.S. is now an active participant in an extensive military operation aiming to stifle Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
As the world watches for Iran’s next move, Trump issued a stern warning to the country, telling them not to retaliate to the U.S.strikes.
“Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight,” Trump said in a social media post. Hegseth reinforced this point on Sunday morning, saying it “would be a very bad idea for Iran or its proxies to attempt to attack American forces.”
Meanwhile, Israel and Iran continue to exchange missiles amid their ongoing conflict. israel’s military reported that Iran launched a fresh wave of missiles following the U.S. strikes.
Iran’s options: Retaliation and Beyond
In the wake of the U.S. strikes, Iran faces a critical juncture, weighing its response too the attacks. The nation, as articulated by Foreign minister Araghchi and President Pezeshkian, has vowed a resolute response. The rhetoric suggests a multifaceted approach, potentially involving military, diplomatic, and economic measures. The future, however, remains uncertain, with a delicate balance between deterring further aggression and avoiding a wider conflict.
The core of Iran’s options centers on the concept of retaliation. What forms this retaliation might take remains a subject of intense speculation. Iran’s military capabilities, its network of regional proxies, and its diplomatic ties all play a crucial role in its forthcoming decisions.
Military Options
Iran’s military options are diverse and can be broadly categorized. These are:
- Direct strikes: Targeting U.S. military assets in the region, including bases in Iraq, syria, and the Persian Gulf. This option is risky, as it could trigger a massive U.S. response, as warned by President Trump and Secretary Hegseth.
- Attacks via proxies: Utilizing regional allies like Hezbollah in lebanon and various Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen to launch attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests. This could delay any direct military involvement by Iran.
- Cyberattacks: Targeting U.S. infrastructure and goverment institutions with cyber warfare. Cyberattacks offer plausible deniability and the potential to cause important disruption.
- Missile strikes: Deploying ballistic missiles against military bases or other strategic targets in the region. The recent exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel indicates this may be the course of action.
Diplomatic and Economic Strategies
Alongside military options, Iran can also employ diplomatic and economic strategies.For context, the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal talks had been suspended.As such, Iran might consider these approaches:
- U.N. intervention: As earlier reported,Iran has already called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to condemn the U.S. strikes and seek international support.
- Sanctions relief: Iran could exploit international condemnation of the U.S. action to try and appeal to allies to ease existing sanctions.
- Oil market leverage: Iran could disrupt oil supplies from the Strait of Hormuz,a major global chokepoint for oil shipments,thereby raising global prices.
It’s critically important to note that escalation could result in severe economic consequences for Iran, which might include further international isolation and sanctions. Diplomatic efforts, while less immediately impactful, may offer a path to de-escalation and a negotiated settlement. The Iranian leadership has always stressed the importance of national unity and resilience in the face of foreign aggression.
What are the long-term implications of this conflict for Iran? The conflict could lead to further isolation, economic hardship, and potential internal instability. Conversely, a successful defense of its interests could enhance the regime’s legitimacy and bolster its regional influence.
Expert Analysis: Implications for the Region
According to Middle East analyst Dr. Fatima Ali of the Institute for Regional Security, “The U.S. strikes have substantially raised the stakes in an already volatile region. Iran’s response will be carefully calibrated to balance its need to deter further attacks with the imperative to avoid a wider war.” She continues that “the involvement of Israel further complicates matters, as any Iranian response could draw them into a more direct conflict.”
Iran’s actions and the potential consequences will reshape the Middle East’s security landscape. This incident will strain the international community’s attempts to maintain stability and prevent further escalation in conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What are the biggest risks for Iran in responding militarily?
A: The biggest risks are a full-scale war with the U.S. and its allies, widespread destruction of Iranian infrastructure, and a collapse of the Iranian economy.
Q: How could Iran retaliate without direct military action?
A: Iran could utilize its network of proxies in the region, launch cyberattacks, or disrupt global oil supplies as forms of calculated retaliation.
Q: What is the role of the U.N. Security Council in this crisis?
A: The U.N. Security council is a key forum for addressing the crisis, facilitating dialog, and potentially imposing sanctions or other measures to de-escalate the conflict.
Q: Could the U.S. and Iran return to the negotiating table?
A: It is not likely in the short term; however, further escalation by either side may further negotiations-but it is contingent upon any easing of tensions and a willingness to compromise.
Q: What is the meaning of Israel’s involvement?
A: Israel’s involvement complicates the crisis as it elevates the potential for a wider conflict in which both states attack each other directly and or through proxies.
Table of Contents
