By Dr Majid Khan (Melbourne):
The escalation in June 2025 between Iran and Israel came as a shock to much of the international community. While Israel accused Tehran of a grave strategic miscalculation, Iran found itself grappling with substantial military losses and a shaken public perception of its defense capabilities. Amidst this conflict, some media outlets suggested that Indian nationals in Iran were either endangered or targeted. A deeper review of the situation, however, reveals a more nuanced and factually grounded reality.
On June 12 and 13, Israel executed a sophisticated campaign combining airstrikes and covert operations deep within Iranian territory. Strategic infrastructure such as nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz and Esfahan, missile installations, and radar facilities were among the key targets.
According to The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, the Israeli campaign utilized cyber operations and drones, likely coordinated by Mossad, to first disable Iranian air defenses before deploying manned aircraft. In total, fifteen key installations were reportedly hit, leading to significant casualties, including senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials and prominent nuclear scientists.
Iran’s intelligence and military branches appeared caught off guard by the timing and complexity of Israel’s attack. Within Iran, public criticism surged, particularly on social media, where citizens questioned how such a wide-scale assault could have occurred unchallenged.
The question “Where is our air defense?” became emblematic of the national sentiment. Reports suggest that Israel exploited critical blind spots in Iranian radar and anti-aircraft coverage, launching precise strikes with minimal warning or interception.
One contributing factor to Iran’s failure to respond in time was a misreading of Israeli strategic intentions. Iranian analysts reportedly believed that any significant Israeli military move would coincide with setbacks in nuclear negotiations in Oman.
Based on this erroneous assessment, Iran dismissed early intelligence of Israeli mobilization as psychological warfare, rather than credible threats. This miscalculation delayed key defensive actions, including the relocation of personnel and assets. As a result, several senior IRGC members were present at vulnerable sites when the attacks began.
Rather than a singular intelligence failure, what unfolded was a multi-layered breakdown encompassing miscommunication, insufficient readiness protocols, and a rigid command hierarchy. Intelligence reports signaling potential Israeli action failed to translate into operational preparedness.
Analysts argue that centralized decision-making in Tehran contributed to the paralysis, as field-level commanders lacked the authority to act decisively without direct approval from higher-ups. This failure in Iran’s command-and-control architecture was pivotal. Parallel to the military developments, rumors began to circulate that Indian citizens in Iran had been caught in the conflict or even deliberately targeted. These claims, amplified by social media and some loosely sourced news articles, suggested Indian students were trapped near missile strike zones or had become casualties. A few headlines went further, insinuating that Indians were victims of targeted attacks. However, these narratives were not corroborated by verifiable evidence.
In response to the unfolding situation, the Indian embassy in Tehran issued a series of advisories starting June 13, recommending that Indian nationals exercise caution and consider relocating to safer areas. A 24-hour helpline was established, and regular contact was maintained with Indian students and expatriates. Leading Indian media outlets like the Times of India and WION offered more balanced coverage, focusing on the embassy’s efforts to ensure the safety of Indian nationals. Interviews with Indian residents in Iran indicated concern but not panic. Many affirmed they were not in immediate danger. The embassy’s swift, transparent outreach effectively dispelled much of the misinformation circulating online.
The dissemination of misleading information can be attributed to heightened fear, widespread misinformation, and the viral spread of unverified claims on digital platforms. In volatile geopolitical environments like that of Iran and Israel, minor events are often exaggerated or distorted. The protective advisories issued by Indian authorities were repackaged by some sources into narratives of direct involvement or harm, which were not only unfounded but also potentially damaging to diplomatic relations.
On a broader level, the Iran-Israel conflict illuminated deep flaws in Tehran’s defense systems and highlighted the evolving nature of modern warfare. Iran is now under considerable domestic pressure to revamp its intelligence structure, decentralize military command, and reevaluate its reliance on predictive analysis that underestimated Israeli agility and capability.
Israel’s operation demonstrated a well-integrated military doctrine that combines cyber warfare, human intelligence, and surgical strikes. This hybrid model of conflict engagement, with minimal collateral damage, may influence future military strategies across the region. The operation showed how a combination of intelligence supremacy and tactical innovation can decisively shift strategic balances.
A new layer of speculation emerged when some Indian and international outlets claimed that Indian citizens employed in infrastructure projects, such as Chabahar Port, were allegedly involved in espionage activities aiding Israel.
Reports in publications like The New Indian Express and India Today suggested that some Indian nationals had been detained by Iranian authorities under suspicion of spying. However, these stories relied solely on unnamed sources and lacked concrete evidence.
Historically, Iran has detained foreign nationals, including Indians, on espionage charges, but such cases have never been proven to be linked to Israeli intelligence operations. These recent allegations surfaced without documentation, eyewitness testimony, or official confirmation. As such, they remain speculative at best.
Analysts offer several theories regarding the motivation behind these reports. Some suggest the stories may be part of Israeli psychological operations aimed at projecting a broader intelligence reach. Others argue that Iranian authorities might be using these claims to justify increased scrutiny on foreign workers or to deflect from internal security failures. In either case, these reports complicate India’s diplomatic positioning and risk unnecessary friction with Tehran.
Skeptical assessments by Indian outlets like The Hindu and The Wire pointed out the lack of substantiation in the espionage claims. Iranian state media, meanwhile, dismissed the allegations as Western disinformation. This cycle of anonymous reports followed by official rebuttals aligns with known patterns of information warfare, where competing narratives are weaponized to influence public perception and strategic outcomes.
If Indian nationals were not actively contributing to Israeli intelligence success, why were such reports disseminated? One explanation lies in the broader phenomenon of modern strategic deception. Introducing third-party involvement can sow confusion, erode trust, and shift diplomatic costs. Alternatively, these claims may have been amplified by unaffiliated actors with unrelated agendas, leveraging a crisis to propagate disinformation.
The recent conflict illustrates how contemporary warfare is waged across multiple fronts: physical, digital, and informational. Human intelligence remains vital, and Israel’s operation was likely supported by long-cultivated networks within Iran, possibly including sources in the IRGC.
U.S. and Western intelligence sharing, particularly in satellite surveillance and signal interception, also likely played a key role. Still, attributing Israeli success to foreign civilian collaborators, especially without evidence, risks creating misleading narratives. The broader lesson is that modern conflicts no longer unfold solely on traditional battlefields. They are fought simultaneously in cyberspace, through media narratives, and via covert operations. This reality complicates efforts to distinguish truth from manipulation and demands heightened diligence from governments, analysts, and journalists.
