Dim Amor

On June 12, 2025, Israel carried out a military attack against targets in Iran with the aim of defending its security, according to official statements from Jerusalem. The attack led to a wave of sharp international reactions that expose the new geopolitical map and reveal who stands beside Israel and who opposes its actions.

Russia led the camp sharply condemning the Israeli attack. President Vladimir Putin called the operation a "sharp escalation" and declared that it violates the UN Charter. Putin called for resolving the issue through diplomatic means. The Russian condemnation reflects the complex relations between Moscow and Tehran, especially in light of the close military ties woven between the two countries during the war in Ukraine.

Persian Gulf states also expressed opposition to the attack. Saudi Arabia condemned the operation and called it a violation of Iranian sovereignty, despite the complex relations and historical hostility between Riyadh and Tehran. Oman, which often serves as a mediator between the West and Iran, warned against escalation and called to stop the attack while referring to concerns that it might harm nuclear negotiations. Pakistan also severely condemned the attack and defended Iran's right to respond.

Turkey, which maintains a complex policy toward its Middle Eastern neighbors, called for diplomacy and restraint in responses.

In the Far East, Asia-Pacific countries including India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand expressed significant concern and called to avoid further escalation. These responses reflect the growing fear of impact on global stability and international supply chains.

Europe found itself in a complex situation. Germany called to stop the escalation but simultaneously recognized Israel's right to defend itself, and declared its readiness to assist in a diplomatic solution. The Czech Republic expressed a different position – the Czech Foreign Minister expressed support for Israel's right to self-defense and called the attack a "legitimate response to a real threat to its existence." The Czech government did not demand restraint but expressed understanding for the military action, similar to positions it expressed in previous conflicts.

The European Union as an institution called for diplomacy and avoiding violent escalation and expressed genuine concern about the regional impact of the attack. The joint European approach reflects the attempt to maintain balance between commitments to Israel's security and fear of a wide-scale regional war.

In the United States, a sharp split was exposed along party lines. Republicans expressed strong support for the attack. Democrats, for their part, showed division of opinions.

Britain adopted a balanced position. Prime Minister Keir Starmer supported Israel's right to self-defense but called to stop outbreaks and avoid regional war. The British approach reflects the desire to maintain the special relationship with Israel while avoiding encouragement of further escalation.

Canada expressed support for Israel's right to defense while calling for restraint and minimal escalation. Ukraine, busy with its war against Russia, did not publish a direct official response to the attack, although it has previously supported preventing escalations in the Middle East.

It is interesting to note that Syria, despite its geographical proximity and connections with Iran, did not issue official condemnations from the government. Reports from Damascus deal mainly with Israel's past actions on Syrian territory, but not with a direct response to the attack on Iran.

International reactions to the Israeli attack reveal a complex geopolitical map where Israel receives support from certain countries, mainly its traditional allies, but faces condemnations from many other nations. The split in the United States along party lines, the prominent Czech support, and condemnations from Russia and Gulf states all point to the growing complexity of international relations in the Middle East.

The international community finds itself facing a familiar dilemma: how to balance support for a state's right to defend itself against fear of escalation that could lead to a wide-scale regional war. The Israeli attack on June 12 exposes the new lines crystallizing in the Middle East and the challenges facing the international community in its attempt to prevent further escalation in the world's most sensitive region.

Russia | Condemned as "sharp escalation," declared it violates UN Charter, Putin called for diplomatic solution

Oman | Called to stop the attack, noted possible damage to nuclear negotiations

Pakistan | Severely condemned and defended Iran's right to respond

Saudi Arabia | Condemned the attack and called it a violation of Iranian sovereignty

Turkey | Called for diplomacy and restraint in responses

India | Expressed concern and called to avoid escalation

Japan | Expressed concern and called to avoid escalation

Australia | Expressed concern and called to avoid escalation

New Zealand | Expressed concern and called to avoid escalation

Other Asia-Pacific countries | Expressed concern and called to avoid escalation

European Union | Called for diplomacy and avoiding violent escalation, expressed regional concern

Supporting Countries or Those with Mixed Positions

United States | [Split position along party lines]

Britain | Conditional support – Starmer supported right to self-defense, called to avoid regional war

Germany | Mixed position – called for restraint but recognized right to self-defense, offered diplomatic assistance

Czech Republic | Support – Foreign Minister: "legitimate response to real threat," expressed understanding for the operation

Canada | Conditional support – support for right to defense, call for restraint and minimal escalation

Countries Without Official Response

Syria | Did not issue official condemnations from the government

Ukraine | Did not publish a direct official response