WANA (Dec 05) – The 12-day war between Iran and Israel began in a way that defied nearly all the classical patterns of warfare in the Middle East. It did not start from military bases, barracks, nuclear facilities, or along border lines. Instead, it erupted in the heart of Tehran’s residential neighborhoods. Israel’s first wave of operations targeted senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists inside their private apartments—attacks that destroyed entire buildings and killed ordinary civilians who had no connection to the battlefield.

 

This reality caught Iran’s governing institutions by surprise. Tehran’s mayor, Alireza Zakani, described the early hours of the attacks as follows: “Neither the government nor the municipality imagined that the war would reach the middle of the city. The expectation was that any attack would focus on specific military or nuclear facilities. Tehran was always considered a support center, not a frontline.”

 

His remarks reveal a broader truth: Iran entered a war for which it had no pre-designed operational architecture. This was an urban war, not a conventional military one. The country’s classic crisis-management model had been built for natural disasters and border conflicts—never for explosions in the alleyways and residential towers of the capital.

A man stands his damaged house at an impact site following the Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 14, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The first images after the attacks unmistakably conveyed this unpreparedness: collapsed buildings scattered across central streets, residents forced to abandon their homes, and families standing before the rubble of their apartments holding nothing but their identification documents. It was at that moment that a fundamental question emerged: what would become of these newly displaced victims of urban warfare?

 

Although emergency housing had never formally fallen within the mandate of the Tehran Municipality, the city authorities chose, voluntarily, to shoulder the social management of the crisis. Zakani explained: “Hotels were cleared, and 471 families—more than 1,200 people—were accommodated in 11 hotels. All expenses were covered by the municipality, and we received no financial assistance from any other institution.”

A picture of a child is seen at his house following an Israeli strike on a building last week, after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 25, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

At the same time, debris removal and search-and-rescue operations continued around the clock. Municipal teams, the Iranian Red Crescent, and specialized rescue units worked jointly under a single directive: the operations would not stop until full certainty was achieved that no one remained trapped beneath the rubble. In many countries such missions are curtailed by time limits or budget ceilings—in Tehran, no such caps were imposed.

 

Once the rescue phase ended, the crisis shifted into reconstruction. According to the official municipal report, 5,500 housing units with minor damage—such as broken windows, shattered glass, or façade destruction—were placed under a rapid repair program, with 97 percent restored within a few weeks. In total, 8,560 residential units were identified and categorized into three levels of action: light repairs requiring three to four months; structural reinforcement for roughly 300 units; and full reconstruction for nearly 600 homes—a process that may take up to two years to complete.

Rescuers work at the site of a damaged building, in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 14, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The model of temporary housing was also unusual. Instead of resorting to prefabricated shelters or displacement camps, the government and municipality placed affected families into rented residential units across the city.

 

In the days following the attacks, Iran’s president visited the hotels housing displaced residents as well as hospitals treating the wounded, delivering a clear political message: the official narrative of Iran’s war effort is not simply one of hard-power projection, but of societal protection.

 

This approach stands in sharp contrast when compared with conditions across the front lines. During the same period, Israeli media reported widespread criticism from residents in the northern and southern regions of the occupied territories, citing inadequate shelter arrangements, malfunctions in warning systems, and the effective abandonment of internally displaced communities. In Iran, however, despite the psychological shock of urban bombardment, there have been no reports of collective protests or a crisis of public trust among the affected populations.

A man works in a house following an Israeli strike on a building on Monday, after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 26, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The divergence reflects two different philosophies of wartime governance. On one side is a model centered almost exclusively on the military theater, leaving civilians to cope individually with the consequences. On the other stands an approach that attempts to control the battlefield while simultaneously preserving everyday life within the city.

 

The 12-day war demonstrated that power is no longer defined solely by missile range or drone capability. It is increasingly measured by a state’s ability to manage society under bombardment. Tehran—never designed for such a role—was suddenly thrust into the position of an “urban frontline” and forced, without any ready blueprint, to improvise a new form of crisis governance. At least in this phase, that approach succeeded in striking a balance between military deterrence and social stabilization.

 

The broader significance of this experience goes beyond rebuilding homes or covering financial losses. Tehran proved that even a densely populated modern capital can perform as a frontline hub of crisis management—where citizens, infrastructure, and governance are tested simultaneously. Reflecting on preparedness, Zakani stated: “Even if the war had continued for six months, we were ready for it.”

A large Iranian flag is seen on a building that was attacked by Israel in the Chamran residential complex in Tehran, Iran, July 19, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

This statement is not merely a declaration of municipal readiness; it articulates a new philosophy of urban deterrence: defending the people and the city is as vital as defending the nation militarily. Through rapid reconstruction, dignified temporary housing, and comprehensive urban services, Tehran has presented a model of a “resilient capital”—a template that may inform future approaches to urban crisis management across the Middle East and beyond.

 

Zakani also pointed to forward-looking plans: “We intend to adapt sections of metro stations and parking facilities into shelter spaces, so that in the event of an emergency, citizens can reach safe areas in the shortest possible time.”

 

In the end, victory or defeat in the 12-day confrontation between Iran and Israel cannot be judged solely by the number of missiles launched. It must also be measured by the extent to which civilian lives were protected—and in this hidden arena of the war, Iran appears to have scored ahead of its rival.

People attend a gathering to support Iran’s Armed Forces following the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 24, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)