Editor’s note: In this piece, we take a look at the timelines and patterns of global leaders’ statements on the Israel-Iran conflict during the 12 days of fighting.
Between June 13 and 24, 2025, Israel and Iran engaged in direct military confrontation following Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Over the course of 12 days, both governments confirmed multiple rounds of. On June 23, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement, formally marking the end of what he described as the “12-day war.”
During this period, dozens of political leaders issued statements across diplomatic channels, televised broadcasts and social media platforms. With rapidly shifting events and overlapping narratives, audiences found it difficult to follow who said what, when and with what intent.
Fact Hunter undertook the task of collecting, organizing and verifying leadership statements issued throughout the period of the conflict. Our goal is to provide a clear, accessible analysis of the official discourse surrounding the conflict, helping readers navigate the complexity of wartime rhetoric with accuracy and transparency.
How we built the map: methods and sources
To produce this report, we conducted a systematic review of leadership statements made during the conflict, from June 13 to June 24. In order to better present the dynamic structure of wartime discourse, we constructed a series of network diagrams. Entities are color-coded by type: persons in yellow, titles in light yellow, countries in blue, regions in dark green, statements in light green, concepts or projects in purple, organizations or entities in red and events in orange. Arrows indicate directional relationships, where the arrow originates from the active subject and points to the passive one. Labels on the arrows specify the nature of the relationship or the action between entities.
Twelve days in motion: statement trajectories (June 13-24)
We first outline the chronological evolution of public statements during the conflict. This timeline highlights how leadership rhetoric shifted in response to battlefield developments and diplomatic efforts.
From June 13 to 15, every diagram centers on two main blue nodes, representing Israel and Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson each made statements on June 13, with some supporting Israel’s “self-defense,” some opposing Iran potentially pursuing nuclear weapons, and some taking both positions. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “received a_phone_call_from” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Ministry of External Affairs of India urged “de-escalation” and noted “friendly_relations” with Iran.
On June 17, Trump voiced opposition to Iran while reaffirming his alliance with Israel. Simultaneously, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also weave comment arrows between Israel and Iran. The U.S. began sharing the spotlight with the Middle East duo, taking a more hardline stance against Iran.
On June 19–20, the Iranian nuclear program was brought into focus again, with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy commenting_on it. Trump and Netanyahu continue to comment on Iran; while Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also commented on U.S. As shown in the graph, nuclear risk dominates the network.
On June 21, the network turns kinetic, with the U.S. launching attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Pezeshkian criticized Israel’s response; Modi mentioned concern over U.S. strikes; and Erdoğan accused Netanyahu of aggression. The graph clearly displays a confrontation involving the U.S., Israel and Iran.
Finally, on June 24, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, ending the 12-day conflict, as shown in the graph. India’s Foreign Ministry said it “welcomes” the ceasefire and “advocates dialogue and diplomacy.” Thus, the diagrams trace a clear arc: from a two-party standoff, through U.S. military escalation, back to a negotiated pause.
Inside the network: four lenses on leader rhetoric
Having traced how leadership statements evolved over time, we now examine how different figures and countries were positioned in the information landscape. The following four perspectives offer a deeper look into these dynamics.
All eyes on Tehran: incoming lines to Iran
This graph portrays Iran as a one-way focal point over the entire 12-day period: 18 inbound arrows converge on Tehran, and the statements cluster into three distinct camps.
- Pressure bloc: Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Micheál Martin openly condemnedIran. Merz, Lammy and Kristersson echoed calls to curb Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump sought to “influence” Tehran, underscoring Washington’s lingering focus.
- Calls for de-escalation: Modi voiced concern, while Starmer urged de-escalation. Macron coupled nuclear worries with a proposal for ceasefire talks. Erdogan pressed for diplomacy under a “solidarity” banner. India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued an official statement urging restraint and dialogue.
- Friendly/supportive voices: Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani declared support for Iran.
Taken together, the star-shaped network depicts a “many-against-one” rhetorical battle: Western and regional critics apply pressure through condemnation and nuclear arguments; major and neutral powers advocate diplomatic off-ramps; a handful of allies offer limited backing.
Tel Aviv in the crosshairs: global statements on Israel
This graph places Israel at the center of a star-shaped discourse network, with 17 one-way arrows converging on it.
- Direct criticism: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, al-Sudani, Erdogan and Martin issued outright condemnations. Khamenei and Pezeshkian warned of retaliation.
- Appeals for restraint or dialogue: Macron offered ceasefire talks; Starmer, Luxon and Modi urged de-escalation or voiced concern. India’s Ministry of External Affairs released an official note backing dialogue and restraint.
- Limited backing: Merz reiterated support for Israel’s defense, while Trump sought to shape Israeli decision-making. Modi and Netanyahu maintained an open communication channel, keeping a diplomatic line available.
Overall, Israel confronted widespread criticism and threats, tempered by limited but notable diplomatic backing and potential off-ramps for negotiation.
Trump’s track: pressure and persuasion
Trump maintained direct dialogue with Netanyahu and tried to exert influence over both Israel and Iran.
- Israeli side: Netanyahu stated his country’s position directly while also accepting Trump’s influence, underscoring U.S. dominance in the U.S.–Israel alliance’s public narrative.
- Iranian side: The graph highlights Washington’s intent to deter Tehran through rhetoric or policy.
Overall, within the U.S.–Israel–Iran triangle, the U.S. combines the roles of interlocutor and influencer to advance its strategic interests.
Modi’s middle path: India treads the line
The graph shows Modi adopting a carefully balanced stance in the day’s discourse network:
- Modi maintained communication with Netanyahu, underscoring an open high-level channel between New Delhi and Jerusalem.
- Modi expressed concern to Israel and Iran, signaling that India publicly acknowledges the interests of both sides rather than backing just one partner.
Taken together, the pattern suggests India is pursuing a Middle East balancing act.
Conclusion
Across 12 days of open conflict, public statements by global leaders formed a parallel battlefield. The network diagrams show that Israel and Iran stood at the center of global attention, receiving the highest volume of targeted messages. Figures like Trump and Modi acted as pivotal intermediaries: Trump used rhetoric to exert pressure on both sides, while Modi maintained communication and concern across the divide.
As a fact-check brand, Fact Hunter remains committed to systematically documenting these communication patterns. Follow us for ongoing insights into how narratives take shape and how truth cuts through the fog of conflict.
Have a questionable video or claim? Submit it to Fact Hunter’s investigation team at [therealfacthunter@outlook.com].
