Summary
The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel represents a critical flashpoint in Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, rooted in decades of deep-seated political, religious, and territorial rivalries. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has adopted an openly hostile stance toward Israel, severing diplomatic ties and supporting proxy militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in their opposition to Israel’s existence. The rivalry has intensified in recent years, marked by cycles of covert operations, proxy warfare, and direct military engagements, culminating in a significant surge of violence following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.
This escalation has manifested in a series of military confrontations including Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites and military assets, alongside Iranian ballistic missile retaliations and proxy attacks across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Both sides have demonstrated advanced military capabilities, with Israel employing precision-guided munitions and drone warfare, while Iran has launched missile barrages under operations like “Severe Punishment,” reflecting a high-stakes strategic contest. The conflict’s intensity and geographic breadth underscore the volatile nature of the Iran-Israel rivalry, with the potential to draw in regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and global powers including the United States, Russia, and China.
The crisis has significant humanitarian and economic consequences, notably the displacement of civilians along the Israel-Lebanon border and threats to critical maritime trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial portion of the world’s oil shipments pass. These developments have prompted international calls for de-escalation, even as diplomatic efforts remain complicated by deep mistrust and competing regional interests. The involvement of major powers as mediators and military supporters further complicates the conflict’s trajectory and raises concerns about a broader regional war.
Experts highlight the evolving nature of this conflict, emphasizing Israel’s strategic shift toward preemptive and intelligence-driven operations aimed at neutralizing Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, contrasted with Iran’s reliance on proxy forces and missile strikes to exert pressure without full-scale confrontation. While the immediate military actions have reshaped regional security dynamics, analysts warn of the enduring risks posed by entrenched animosities and the fragile balance of power, underscoring the urgent need for cautious management to prevent further chaos and instability.
Background
The rivalry between Iran and Israel is rooted in decades of political, religious, and territorial tensions that have evolved into a multifaceted and enduring conflict. Prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, relations between the two countries were relatively cordial during much of the Cold War. However, Iran’s opposition to the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine and its prediction of ensuing violence set an early tone of hostility. After the revolution, Iran adopted an openly critical stance toward Israel, severing diplomatic ties and supporting militant groups opposing Israel’s existence, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The 1979 revolution marked a significant turning point, with Iran emerging as a regional power supporting a proxy network known as the “Axis of Resistance,” which includes Lebanese Shia militias and Palestinian groups. This network has been actively engaged in a shadow war against Israel, employing both covert operations and direct military engagements. Iran’s training and arming of Hezbollah during and after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon exemplify this proxy conflict. In recent years, tensions have escalated with waves of deadly attacks between Israel and Iranian-backed groups, raising fears of a broader regional war that could draw in global powers such as the United States.
The rivalry is compounded by broader regional dynamics, particularly involving Saudi Arabia, which views Iran’s ambitions and its nuclear program as significant threats. Since the 1970s, Saudi concerns have included Iran’s military modernization, territorial disputes like the control over islands claimed by the UAE, and Iran’s efforts to export its revolutionary ideology across the Persian Gulf region. This has resulted in a strategic competition marked by mutual suspicion and proxy conflicts in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
The complex web of alliances and enmities in the Middle East means that escalation between Iran and Israel affects and is influenced by the interests of other regional actors, including Gulf states and global powers such as the United States, Russia, and China. While many Middle Eastern countries remain hostile to Iranian influence, they generally do not favor a full-scale war due to potential destabilizing effects. Instead, these states, led by countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, have sought new security frameworks aimed at stabilizing the region through economic and political integration. The ongoing conflict thus unfolds within a delicate balance of regional rivalries, proxy wars, and international strategic competition.
Timeline of Escalation
The escalation between Iran and Israel intensified dramatically following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, an event that killed nearly 1,200 Israelis and marked the outbreak of the Gaza war. Hamas, a Palestinian militant group partially funded by Iran, triggered a broader conflict involving Israeli confrontations with Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Syria. In response, Israel adopted a more assertive military stance, launching strikes aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, military assets, and key operatives responsible for covert activities.
Shortly after Israel’s initial operations, Iran responded with a two-wave ballistic missile attack launched from its territory roughly 18 hours later. This retaliation, although causing limited immediate damage, underscored the potential for further conflict escalation. Meanwhile, Iranian-backed groups increased sporadic drone and missile attacks in Iraq and Syria throughout late 2023, contributing to a persistent pattern of indirect conflict.
From 13 to 16 June 2024, Israel intensified its campaign, conducting hundreds of airstrikes using advanced aircraft including F-35I, F-15I, and F-16 jets, targeting Iranian nuclear sites, military leadership, and infrastructure with precision munitions such as GBU-28 bunker busters and Rampage missiles. Iran responded with its own missile barrage—dubbed “Operation Severe Punishment”—employing a variety of ballistic missiles, including Fattah hypersonic and Khorramshahr ballistic missiles, as well as UAVs, although logistical constraints limited the scale of its retaliation.
In parallel, covert operations persisted. Israeli intelligence reportedly smuggled weapons into Iran ahead of strikes and remotely launched explosive-laden drones, emphasizing strategic surprise through meticulous planning and execution. Israel also targeted Iranian arms shipments and senior figures linked to Iranian-backed groups, including an airstrike on 30 December 2023 that killed 25 militiamen near the Syrian border and an assassination on 2 January 2024 in Beirut eliminating Saleh al-Arouri, a senior Hamas official closely connected to Iran.
The period following these events saw continued proxy confrontations. Iranian allies within the Axis of Resistance issued condemnations but largely refrained from overt escalation beyond rhetoric, with the notable exception of Yemen’s Houthi forces who have been more actively engaged. In October 2024, Iran launched a new series of missile strikes against Israel, provoking further Israeli retaliatory strikes and culminating in the outbreak of the Iran–Israel war in June 2025.
The broader geopolitical environment reflected growing international concern. The British maritime trade agency issued warnings about increased regional tensions potentially impacting shipping in strategic waterways such as the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the United States engaged diplomatically and militarily, balancing efforts to de-escalate with support for Israel’s operations, including conditioning a Rafah offensive on the restraint of Israeli strikes against Iran.
Throughout this timeline, the conflict has represented a significant escalation of decades-long animosity, with Israel perceiving Iran’s nuclear ambitions as existential threats and Iran continuing to challenge Israel’s legitimacy. The ongoing cycle of strikes, proxy engagements, and covert operations reveals a complex and volatile regional crisis with profound implications for Middle East stability and global security.
Causes and Motivations
The recent escalation between Israel and Iran is rooted in a complex interplay of security concerns, regional power struggles, and shifting strategic calculations. A key catalyst was the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, which heightened Israeli insecurity and altered its risk tolerance, prompting a more aggressive military posture toward Iran and its proxies. This shift is reflected in Israel’s less restrained military operations not only in Gaza but also against Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iranian officials involved in covert activities, marking a departure from previous patterns of covert conflict to more overt military actions.
Israel’s campaign appears primarily aimed at degrading Iran’s conventional military capabilities, particularly its air defenses and missile forces, which pose a potential threat if used to deliver nuclear weapons in the future. This strategy also seeks to weaken Iran’s economic capacity to rebuild these forces, restore deterrence following the Hamas attacks, and destabilize the Iranian regime itself. The Israeli military’s use of advanced fighter aircraft, precision-guided munitions, and drone strikes illustrates a well-planned, intelligence-driven effort to maintain strategic surprise and operational effectiveness against Iran.
Iran’s role as a regional hegemon is a fundamental source of tension. Its extensive support for proxy militias across the Middle East—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, and the Houthis in Yemen—has enabled it to exert influence and challenge Israeli and Saudi interests. Tehran’s significant financial and military backing of these groups, such as funneling billions to the Assad regime and Hezbollah, underscores its commitment to expanding its regional footprint and creating a strategic corridor from Iran to the Mediterranean. This expansionism fuels mutual suspicions and intensifies rivalry, particularly with Saudi Arabia, which seeks to counter Iranian influence amid its own regional ambitions.
The United States’ stance and actions also shape the conflict dynamics. U.S. policy has historically sanctioned numerous Iranian proxy groups, reflecting concerns over Iran’s destabilizing activities, yet its approach to Iran remains largely reactive. Meanwhile, Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israel, including the use of advanced ballistic and hypersonic missiles, demonstrate Tehran’s intent to respond forcefully while managing supply constraints. The presence of large Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria adds further complexity, as these groups engage in attacks against U.S. forces, risking deeper American involvement in the conflict.
Moreover, Israel’s covert operations within Iran, including smuggling weapons and launching drone strikes, reveal an intent to undermine Iran’s military infrastructure and morale from within. However, efforts to exploit internal Iranian opposition are approached with caution, as external interference risks discrediting indigenous pro-democracy movements and may empower hardline factions that favor consolidation of power through repression.
Military Strategies and Tactics
Iran’s military response strategy against Israel historically has combined proxy attacks, cyber operations, and direct missile and drone strikes, often aiming to exert pressure without escalating to full-scale war. Its preferred approach involves coordinated firepower strikes, utilizing salvoes of cruise and ballistic missiles alongside waves of attack drones targeting both military and civilian infrastructure. This multi-domain offensive tactic draws on principles similar to Russian noncontact warfare doctrine, emphasizing standoff precision attacks to disrupt critical infrastructure and achieve strategic objectives while minimizing direct confrontation. Recent escalations, such as the January 2024 ballistic missile salvo against Al Assad airbase in Iraq and Operation True Promise in April 2024, illustrate Iran’s continued reliance on this layered firepower strike strategy to overwhelm adversary defenses, particularly those of Israel.
Israel’s military response to Iranian threats has evolved significantly since Hamas’s October 2023 attacks. Its campaign exhibits characteristics of comprehensive strategic planning, combining high-level intelligence, surprise, and a blend of conventional and unconventional capabilities including fighter jets and drones. Israel’s recent Operation Rising Lion exemplifies this approach, demonstrating the ability to achieve tactical surprise through long-term preparation and covert operations. Mossad agents reportedly smuggled weapons and established forward bases inside Iran, enabling remote deployment of explosive-laden drones and precision strikes on critical Iranian air defense systems. This operation’s success rested on meticulous coordination between the Israel Defense Forces and Mossad over several years, showing a shift towards proactive preemptive tactics aimed at ending conflicts on favorable terms rather than reactive escalation.
Iran’s retaliatory tactics focus heavily on ballistic missile launches, which have the highest potential to penetrate Israeli air defenses and inflict damage. Drone and cruise missile attacks, while frequent, face more robust interception measures by Israel’s advanced missile defense systems. Consequently, Israeli forces have prioritized targeting Iranian air defense and missile launch sites to mitigate these threats before they materialize. During June 2024, Israel conducted hundreds of precision airstrikes using advanced munitions such as GBU-28 bunker busters and Rampage missiles against Iranian nuclear sites, leadership, and infrastructure. Iran’s response included launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and UAVs, including Fattah hypersonic and Khorramshahr ballistic missiles, under the banner of “Operation Severe Punishment”.
The high volume of Iranian missile launches necessary to overwhelm Israel’s defenses poses a logistical challenge for Tehran, as it risks depleting its missile stockpiles faster than production rates allow. Additionally, changing geopolitical realities have constrained Iran’s traditional options for proxy attacks in the Gulf region, such as strikes against Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Iran’s network of proxy militias, particularly in Iraq and Syria, continues to play a critical role in its asymmetric warfare strategy. Groups like Asaib Ahl al Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, integrated into Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces but directly supported by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), have conducted hundreds of attacks on U.S. forces and serve as strategic depth for Iran’s broader Axis of Resistance.
Meanwhile, Israel’s military operations have extended beyond direct Iranian targets to include strikes against proxies such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iranian military officials involved in covert activities. This expansive approach underscores Israel’s shift toward a more assertive and multifaceted campaign to counter Iran’s regional influence and emerging nuclear threats. The interplay of direct strikes, proxy warfare, cyberattacks, and sabotage marks the current phase of the Iran-Israel conflict, raising concerns over potential regional destabilization and the risk of escalation involving multiple state and non-state actors.
Impact and Consequences
The ongoing escalation between Iran and Israel has significantly intensified regional instability and global geopolitical tensions. One immediate consequence has been the large-scale displacement of civilians along the Israel-Lebanon border, with over 150,000 people—62,000 from northern Israel and more than 92,000 from southern Lebanon—forced to flee their homes following October 2023 clashes involving Hezbollah and Israeli forces. This humanitarian crisis has increased pressure on Israeli leadership to contain Hezbollah’s military capabilities to allow displaced residents to return safely.
Militarily, Hezbollah has substantially enhanced its arsenal, amassing over 150,000 standoff weapons in Lebanon and Syria with Iranian backing. This growing arsenal, combined with proxy forces active across the region, suggests that the threat from the north remains acute and could intensify, further complicating Israel’s security landscape. Moreover, Iran’s response to Israeli operations has involved the use of conventional missile capabilities and proxy activation, notably including Houthi forces, heightening risks of a broader regional escalation.
The conflict has deepened the already fraught animosity between Iran and Israel, which has persisted for decades primarily over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s existential security concerns. The recent flare-ups have increased fears of a wider war involving other regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, potentially destabilizing the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s attempts to curb Iranian influence have been challenged by the aggressive posture of its leadership, further exacerbating tensions.
Economically, the situation threatens global energy security due to Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which about 20% of the world’s oil shipments pass. Any disruption or closure of the strait could trigger a global energy crisis, forcing Gulf oil producers into the conflict and causing substantial volatility in oil markets. The potential targeting of Iranian oil infrastructure by Israel would mark a significant escalation with unpredictable consequences, including possible retaliatory measures by Tehran to block oil exports from neighboring states.
Internationally, major powers have sought roles as mediators while also navigating their strategic rivalries. China and Russia have portrayed themselves as potential power brokers in the crisis, reflecting the broader
International Reactions and Diplomatic Efforts
The escalation of conflict between Israel and Iran has elicited a complex array of international reactions, reflecting the geopolitical stakes and regional sensitivities involved. Several global and regional powers have called for restraint while engaging in varied diplomatic maneuvers aimed at de-escalation.
China and Russia have positioned themselves as potential mediators in the conflict, seeking to portray their roles as constructive power brokers amidst the intensifying tensions in the Middle East. This approach is also interpreted within the broader context of their strategic competition with the United States. However, Russia’s response has been notably cautious; while critical of Israel’s actions, Moscow has refrained from concrete support for Iran, instead urging all parties to exercise restraint and avoid further escalation.
The United States has taken a largely reactive stance toward Iran, with concerns about Iranian proxy activation and threats to U.S. personnel in the region remaining high. Despite Israel conducting unilateral military strikes against Iran, the U.S. administration communicated to regional allies that these operations were independent of U.S. involvement and expressed a preference for diplomatic solutions over military escalation. Going forward, indicators of continued U.S. support for Israel include public affirmations of the strikes’ necessity, ongoing military aid, and defensive measures against anticipated Iranian retaliation. Additionally, the U.S. government deliberated over military and diplomatic options, with international pressure influencing decisions to pursue de-escalation.
Regional actors have also responded with a mix of condemnation, concern, and calls for restraint. Saudi Arabia strongly condemned the Israeli strikes against Iran, emphasizing solidarity with the Islamic Republic. The kingdom’s response included suspending talks on potential normalization with Israel amid the conflict. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s tensions with Iran have been compounded by proxy conflicts, including Houthi attacks on its infrastructure that add a new dimension to Tehran-Riyadh confrontations. Despite historic animosities, Saudi Arabia cooperated with Israel and Jordan during Iranian strikes on Israel in April 2024, demonstrating the complexity of alliances and rivalries in the region.
European responses have emphasized de-escalation and stability. French President Emmanuel Macron called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid jeopardizing regional stability, while condemning Iran’s nuclear program and supporting diplomatic measures to address it. The United Kingdom, through maritime trade advisories, warned of heightened risks to commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters due to escalating military activity.
Efforts to initiate ceasefire talks have been led by Gulf states such as Oman and Qatar, reflecting a shared regional interest in curbing the spread of conflict. Meanwhile, Turkey has maintained a nuanced position, avoiding military confrontation with Israel despite geopolitical competition with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has advocated for nuclear negotiations as the pathway to resolving the Israel-Iran conflict and criticized the international community’s perceived inaction that allowed the conflict to widen. Turkey’s regional policies, including its energy dependence on Iran and skepticism from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have complicated its alignment within the broader Sunni-Shia divide.
Media Coverage and Public Perception
The media coverage of the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel has been extensive, reflecting the complexity and regional significance of the confrontation. Iranian state media notably downplayed Israeli strikes, with Iranian officials emphasizing that there was no intention of planned retaliation, signaling a mutual desire by both sides to de-escalate tensions after recent attacks. This cautious framing contrasts with international media perspectives, which often highlight the heightened risks of broader regional instability.
Western news outlets have provided detailed analysis of the evolving dynamics, focusing on covert operations, military strikes, and diplomatic maneuvers. For instance, journalists such as Farnaz Fassihi, Eric Schmitt, and Ronen Bergman have contributed in-depth reporting on the shadow war between Iran and Israel, covering incidents ranging from drone strikes to political developments within the United States and the Middle East. Their work underscores how the conflict has shifted from proxy engagements to more overt military confrontations, raising questions about future escalation and the international response.
Public perception in Iran is shaped by a historical context of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Prior to his leadership, Ruhollah Khomeini championed the Palestinian people, a stance that has continued to influence Iranian public sentiment and government policy. Large-scale rallies in Tehran, where demonstrators display Palestinian, Iranian, and Hezbollah flags, exemplify widespread public support for resistance against Israel. These demonstrations are often framed by Iranian state media as patriotic and defensive, reinforcing narratives of regional solidarity.
Conversely, Israeli public discourse has been influenced by security concerns regarding Iran’s efforts to supply advanced weaponry to proxy groups like Hezbollah via routes through Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Israeli military operations targeting these supply lines reflect a strategic imperative to counter Iranian influence and prevent arms proliferation to hostile actors. Furthermore, reports of Israel fostering ties with opposition groups within Iran have fueled domestic and international speculation about potential internal challenges to the Iranian regime.
Internationally, the media narrative has also highlighted the involvement of major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia. China and Russia have positioned themselves as potential mediators, aiming to shape the conflict’s trajectory amidst their broader strategic competition with the U.S.. Meanwhile, U.S. policy has been characterized as reactive, with Israel’s recent military assertiveness offering Washington opportunities to leverage advantages against the so-called Axis of Resistance, including Iran and its allied militias.
The portrayal of Iran in global media has evolved in light of recent events. While Iran has long been cast as a rogue state threatening regional stability through its nuclear ambitions and support for militant groups, the October 2023 conflict involving Hamas and Hezbollah has complicated this image. The role of Iranian-backed proxies in perpetrating attacks that resulted in significant Israeli casualties has intensified scrutiny of Iran’s influence and raised alarms about potential escalation.
Public perception regarding Iran’s retaliatory capabilities and likely responses is informed by its historical use of diverse tactics, including proxy attacks, cyber operations, and missile strikes. Analysts anticipate that future Iranian responses will involve coordinated firepower strikes comprising cruise and ballistic missiles alongside drone attacks targeting Israel. This anticipated military posture contributes to a tense media environment characterized by uncertainty and the looming risk of expanded hostilities.
Analysis and Expert Commentary
The recent escalation between Israel and Iran has drawn significant analysis from experts who emphasize the evolving nature of this conflict and its broader strategic implications. Central to understanding the dynamics at play is the concept of strategic surprise achieved through patient preparation and audacious execution, reminiscent of historical military tactics such as the Trojan Horse. Israel’s approach demonstrates how traditional operational principles can be adapted to confront twenty-first-century threats posed by authoritarian adversaries, offering a model for democratic nations facing similar challenges.
Iran’s leadership faces a strategic dilemma in responding to Israel’s military operations. Tehran must decide whether to mount overwhelming attacks in a few large salvos or pursue a protracted campaign of sustained assaults. This decision is complicated by Israeli air dominance, with surveillance aircraft monitoring known launch sites, limiting Iran’s options. Consequently, Iran appears likely to adopt a strategy of “strategic patience,” biding its time for a more advantageous moment to strike back. The involvement of proxy forces, such as the Houthis, further exemplifies Iran’s reliance on asymmetric tactics to project power without direct confrontation.
The conflict’s implications extend beyond the immediate region, intersecting with broader geopolitical contests involving major powers like China and Russia. Both countries have sought to position themselves as potential mediators, reflecting their interest in the Middle East as part of their strategic competition with the United States. This context underscores the complexity of managing the crisis, as U.S. foreign policy must balance reactive measures against Iran with the need to maintain regional stability and counter the influence of rival global actors.
Experts also caution about the risks of escalation inherent in this conflict. While Israel’s military actions aim to diminish Iranian capabilities, there is a significant danger of pushing Iran into a corner, potentially triggering outcomes undesirable for both Israel and the United States. Within Iran, domestic discontent with the ruling theocracy could be exacerbated by the conflict’s sharp escalation, complicating the regime’s ability to navigate the crisis internally.
The regional security order is undergoing profound shifts, particularly in the Gulf, where states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates had pursued rapprochement with Iran and Israel through economic and political integration efforts. Since October 7, 2023, however, Israel has aggressively pursued a unilateral expansionist agenda, targeting Gaza, Hezbollah, Syria’s Assad regime, and Iran itself, based on allegations of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat that remain unverified. This aggressive posture has upended previous attempts at regional stabilization and increased tensions across multiple fronts.
From a U.S. perspective, the situation is equally complex. While the Trump administration reportedly communicated in advance with allied governments to clarify that Israeli strikes were not U.S. operations and expressed a preference for diplomacy over military engagement, the escalating conflict raises urgent questions about America’s role and strategy in the region. RAND analysts highlight that although Israel’s successes may reduce short-term threats, they could elevate risks in the longer term, particularly regarding threats to U.S. personnel and broader regional stability.
The content is provided by Avery Redwood, Fact-Nest
