Iran’s military degraded by 12-day war with Israel, but still has significant capabilities

As tensions escalate between the United States and Iran, fears of another potentially devastating war in the Middle East are mounting. The U.S. has positioned one carrier strike group in the region, with reports suggesting another is en route, as President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear program.

This military buildup comes in the shadow of last year’s 12-day Israel-Iran conflict, which significantly damaged but failed to neutralize Iran’s military capabilities. The distinction between damage and neutralization looms large in the current standoff, with analysts concerned that any new hostilities could quickly spiral into a broader regional conflict.

The June 2023 war began when Israel launched strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and key military leadership. The United States joined the effort, deploying B-2 stealth bombers from Missouri to drop powerful “bunker-buster” bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites. The decision marked a significant gamble for President Trump, who has frequently criticized previous administrations for engaging in what he termed “stupid wars.”

Iran’s response was notably restrained, consisting of a limited missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. Tehran provided advance warning of this strike, resulting in no casualties. Both Iran and Israel subsequently agreed to a ceasefire, bringing the immediate hostilities to an end.

Israel’s air campaign proved particularly effective, with coordinated airstrikes and covert ground operations significantly degrading Iran’s air defense systems. Iran, recognizing the technological inferiority of its aging F-14 and MiG-29 fighters against Israel’s advanced F-35 stealth aircraft, never deployed its air force.

“In practical terms, in reductionist terms, the sky is open for American and Israeli planes,” explained Sascha Bruchmann, a defense analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain. “The problem is how to defend the region from the retaliation.”

Bruchmann suggests that in an expanded conflict, Iran would likely target U.S. bases throughout the region while potentially disrupting global oil supplies by attacking energy infrastructure and mining the Strait of Hormuz—a critical maritime chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil transits daily.

The stakes could be dramatically higher if Iran’s leadership perceives an existential threat. “If the regime itself believes its survival is at stake, which it did not believe in June last year, I think the game is different,” Bruchmann noted. “If you have a regime that thinks it’s about to go down, then why would you hold back with retaliation?”

During last year’s conflict, Iran launched hundreds of missiles and deployed over 1,000 attack drones, resulting in nearly three dozen Israeli civilian casualties and thousands of injuries. Danny Citrinowicz, a researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies and former Iranian specialist in Israel’s intelligence services, indicates that satellite imagery shows Iran attempting to rebuild its manufacturing capabilities.

Israel’s strikes last year prioritized Iran’s medium and long-range missiles, which were viewed as the most immediate threats. However, Iran’s arsenal of short-range ballistic missiles—capable of hitting nearby U.S. bases—remained largely intact.

“The short-range ballistic missiles did not suffer any significant hit whatsoever in the 12-day war,” Citrinowicz said.

While Iran’s exact capabilities remain classified, experts believe the country still possesses more than 1,000 long-range missiles capable of striking Israel and several thousand shorter-range missiles that could target American bases in the region.

The military balance between the two countries shows Iran’s numerical advantage, with approximately 600,000 regular troops and 200,000 personnel in the Revolutionary Guard. Israel maintains around 170,000 active-duty personnel plus 400,000 reserves. However, Israel’s forces benefit from battle experience, advanced American and European equipment, and a robust domestic defense industry.

Iran has historically relied on proxy forces such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yemeni Houthi rebels. However, recent conflicts have substantially weakened these groups, raising questions about their ability or willingness to support Iran in a new conflict. Iran-linked militias in Iraq may pose a more immediate threat to U.S. forces stationed there.

Israel’s crucial advantage remains its American backing, including U.S. naval assets and multiple regional bases such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosts thousands of American troops and serves as the forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command.

Beyond numerical comparisons, Bruchmann emphasizes the fundamental difference in what each side is willing to risk. “My assumption is that Americans are trying to plan for zero casualties,” he said. “We’re talking regime survival versus a zero casualty intervention—so just phenomenally different stakes.”

This asymmetry in motivations could prove decisive in determining both the likelihood and potential scope of any future conflict between these longtime adversaries.