Global leaders have responded with alarm and criticism following Israel’s large-scale military strikes on Iran, which targeted nuclear facilities and high-ranking military officials.
The Israeli operation, dubbed “Rising Lion,” reportedly killed General Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s top military officer. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the strikes hit Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz, nuclear scientists, and sites linked to the country’s ballistic missile program. In retaliation, Iran launched over 100 drones toward Israeli territory.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the United States had no role in the Israeli operation.
“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Rubio said.
He also warned Iran against retaliating against U.S. personnel or interests, signaling Washington’s desire to avoid being drawn into a broader regional conflict.
Leaders across the world expressed deep concern over the escalation.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, “The reports of these strikes are concerning, and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority, and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.”
Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong also voiced alarm, stating,
“This risks further destabilizing a region that is already volatile. We call on all parties to refrain from actions and rhetoric that will further exacerbate tensions. We all understand the threat of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, but we urge dialogue and diplomacy instead of violence.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the developments “really unwelcome,” emphasizing that “the risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action, and risk associated with that.”
Similar calls for restraint came from Japan’s Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, who said the use of military force was “deeply regrettable” and condemned the action as one that escalates tensions during ongoing nuclear negotiations.
The United Nations also responded strongly. A spokesperson for Secretary-General António Guterres said he condemns any military escalation in the Middle East and is particularly concerned about Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear installations while diplomatic talks are underway.
“The Secretary-General asks both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford,” the statement added.
Several Muslim-majority nations issued sharp condemnations of Israel. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said the strikes “undermine Iran’s sovereignty and security and constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms.”
Oman, which has been mediating nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S., called the attack a “dangerous, reckless escalation” and a “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law.” Oman held Israel responsible for the consequences and urged the international community to act decisively.
Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry also condemned the strikes, warning that they risk “exacerbating existing regional tensions and could potentially trigger a broader conflict.”
Pakistan issued a similar statement, calling the Israeli operation a violation of international law and expressing “resolute solidarity with the people of Iran.”
Meanwhile, Qatar labeled the strikes a “dangerous escalation” and called on the international community to put an end to what it described as “Israeli violations.”
From South Asia, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said it was closely monitoring the situation, including reports of attacks on nuclear sites. India urged both sides to avoid escalation and emphasized its “close and friendly” relations with both Israel and Iran.
China also weighed in through its embassy in Tehran, calling the situation “severe and complex” and urging Chinese citizens in Iran to take extra precautions for their safety.
Lebanon’s leadership joined in the criticism, with President Joseph Aoun saying that Israel’s actions “targeted all ongoing efforts and initiatives towards stability in the region,” and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam calling the strikes a “flagrant violation of international law and Iranian sovereignty.”
The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, urged the United Nations Security Council to take immediate action and “achieve a ceasefire.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan also has expressed deep concern over Israel's military operation against Iran, citing the resulting human casualties and growing regional instability. Tashkent calls on all parties to exercise maximum restraint, immediately cease hostilities, and resolve the conflict through political and diplomatic means. The Ministry reaffirmed Uzbekistan’s commitment to regional stability and offered to support efforts aimed at reducing tensions and preventing further escalation.
The strikes and Iran’s immediate response have raised fears of a full-scale regional war, prompting urgent diplomatic efforts worldwide. Whether these efforts will succeed in halting further escalation remains uncertain, but the international message is clear: the region cannot afford another war.
Military Capabilities: Israel vs. Iran
The confrontation between Israel and Iran brings into focus the significant military capabilities of both nations. Israel has a defense budget of $27bn, 169,000 active personnel, and 465,000 reserve forces. Its air defense is dominated by the Iron Dome system, with over 10 operational batteries capable of intercepting short-range rockets and shells.
On the ground, Israel fields over 2,200 tanks and more than 530 artillery systems. Its air force operates 196 F-16s, 83 F-15s, and 30 advanced F-35s, totaling 339 aircraft, including 309 fighter jets. The country also possesses 142 helicopters, 43 of which are Apache attack helicopters. The Israeli Navy includes 49 corvettes and patrol vessels and 5 submarines.
Iran’s defense budget is estimated between $16bn and $20bn. It has 610,000 active personnel and 350,000 in reserve. Iran’s air defense includes Russia’s S-300 system and domestically developed platforms such as the Bavar-373 and Raad systems.
On the ground, Iran has over 1,700 tanks and 1,900 artillery systems. Its air force operates 40 F-14s, 30 MiG-29s, and 23 Mirage F-1 jets, totaling 551 aircraft with 188 classified as fighter jets. Iran’s rotary wing includes 128 helicopters, of which 50 to 60 are AH-1J SeaCobra attack helicopters. The Iranian Navy operates 67 large surface vessels, 3 large submarines, and 15 mini submarines.
Implications for Central Asia
Eldaniz Gusseinov, a foreign policy analyst specializing in European and international studies, told Daryo that the consequences of the Israel-Iran escalation extend beyond the Middle East and could significantly impact Central Asia.
“So the main threat arising from the latest developments between Iran and Israel for Central Asian countries is the absence of any red lines between these two actors,” Gusseinov said. “Iran seems hesitant to escalate the conflict, but Israel doesn’t appear to share that restraint. This lack of boundaries means such escalations can always happen.”
Gusseinov noted that the current crisis could shift Iran’s strategic priorities, pushing it to engage more with Central Asia due to its waning influence in Syria and a reduction in its proxy presence in the Middle East.
“Iran may increasingly turn to the region, particularly through initiatives like the International North–South Transport Corridor,” he explained. “Its role as an observer in the Eurasian Economic Union and growing trade ties with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia show that Iran is seeking new avenues for influence.”
He also warned that the instability could impact key transport routes, such as Iran’s ports at Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, which are vital for Central Asia’s connectivity with global markets. Gusseinov stressed the need for diversification, highlighting the Trans-Afghan corridor through Herat and Kandahar as a viable alternative.
“This route would give Central Asian countries flexibility to shift between Iranian and Pakistani ports depending on regional tensions,” he said. “If conflict escalates between Israel and Iran, or within Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Herat–Kandahar corridor offers a strategic fallback.”
Furthermore, Gusseinov added that regional cooperation with Gulf countries and India could also be affected, especially given India's interests in accessing Central Asia through Iran’s Chabahar Port.
“These strikes and other military events directly affect our ability to pursue stable economic cooperation with Iran—and by extension—with the Gulf states and India. There’s always a ripple effect,” he concluded.
Looking ahead, Gusseinov added that the escalation could influence the upcoming China–Central Asia summit.
“Three key developments are likely pushing China to emphasize security cooperation in the region: the India–Pakistan border tensions, political changes in Mongolia affecting Chinese railway projects, and now the Israel–Iran conflict. Iran remains a key oil supplier to China, so Beijing is watching closely.”
Follow Daryo's official Instagram and Twitter pages to keep current on world news.
Comments (0)