Sirens echoing across the skies of Tehran, smoke rising from the port of Haifa, and F-35s launching from Israel’s Negev Desert all point to a sobering reality: the Middle East has entered a new era.The developments since June 13 indicate that the long-standing shadow war between Iran and Israel has escalated into an open military confrontation.
Israel’s April 2024 strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus marked a dramatic crossing of traditional red lines. In an unprecedented move, Iran responded by launching missile and drone attacks directly from its territory—something it had never done before.
What was once a covert conflict waged through proxy groups, cyberattacks, and intelligence operations now threatens to become a full-scale state-to-state war. Understanding the factors behind this transformation—and its implications for regional stability—is more urgent than ever. The central question remains: Will Iran and Israel step back from the brink, or is a broader regional war now inevitable?
The Collapse of the Shadow War
Throughout the 2000s, the enduring hostility between Iran and Israel unfolded as a covert confrontation waged in the shadows. During this period, Israel carried out assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, while Iran supported proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Both sides also engaged in cyber operations, most notably the 2010 Stuxnet attack. These tactics enabled each country to weaken the other without engaging in direct military confrontation.
But this careful, choreographed “shadow war” balance collapsed in 2024 when Israel eliminated nearly all of Hezbollah’s top leadership, including Hassan Nasrallah, Iran’s key proxy. The subsequent fall of Assad’s regime in Syria further weakened Iran’s regional position, signalling the end of its Shiite crescent ambitions.
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the stakes extend well beyond immediate military considerations. He has used the post–October 7 environment to advance a broader strategic vision—one that positions Israel not simply as a reactive power but as an assertive force seeking to redefine the regional order in its favour. His recent rhetoric underscores ambitions that go beyond deterring Iran and neutralising Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, pointing instead to a larger objective: reshaping the Middle East and potentially engineering the collapse of the Islamic Republic to cement Israel’s status as the region’s unchallenged hegemon.
Netanyahu has long portrayed Iran as a threat not only to Israel but to the West globally, arguing that only joint military deterrence can counter this danger. His statement on June 16, 2025, “Today Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, New York. Look, I understand ‘America First,’ but I don’t understand ‘America Dead’”—illustrates Israel’s strategy of linking its security inseparably with that of the United States. This rhetoric underscores Netanyahu’s push for a more aggressive U.S. stance against Iran.
Therefore, Israel initiated an all-out air offensive on June 13, 2025, launching decapitation strikes that killed several senior Iranian commanders and nuclear engineers, including Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri. Besides military targets they also directed their strikes to industrial, economic and energy facilities. Iran responded by launching its largest-ever missile and drone barrage from its territory, targeting northern Israel and inflicting damage in cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Netanyahu’s risky gambit
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long promoted a hardline, pre-emptive stance toward Iran’s nuclear program. This posture is driven not only by security concerns but also by Israel’s broader aim of reshaping the regional balance of power in its favour. Netanyahu has consistently opposed any potential nuclear agreement between Tehran and Washington. While some progress had recently been made in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, Israel’s latest attacks—and Iran’s forceful response—led to the cancellation of the planned sixth round of talks.
The Netanyahu government appears to be using the Iranian threat to legitimise its domestic political troubles and justify its ongoing military operations. Its failure to achieve a swift victory in the prolonged Gaza conflict, along with growing international criticism, may also have contributed to this aggressive turn. The U.S. supply of advanced weaponry and air defence systems has further emboldened Israel to take strategic risks.
From Iran’s perspective, retaliation is a must to preserve a modicum of dignity and internal political stability. The country is grappling with a deepening economic crisis, soaring inflation, and widespread disillusionment among its youth. These domestic pressures are compelling the regime to project strength. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s framing of the confrontation as a “sacred duty” to resist Israel is designed to provide ideological justification for Iran’s actions.
An increasing American involvement
The timing of the Israeli attack is also noteworthy as it followed a phone call between Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump later stated that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach a deal—an opportunity Tehran failed to seize. This statement not only underscores Trump’s intent to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions in favour of a negotiated agreement with the United States but also implicitly signals his approval of Israel’s military action.
Trump’s subsequent posts on the X platform—urging Tehran to “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” and declaring “America first means many great things, including the fact that, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons”—signal a close alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv and strong U.S. backing for Netanyahu; an alignment that further undermines diplomatic efforts and contributes to the expansion of the conflict.
It must be noted that Netanyahu’s bellicose ambitions will not be a mere cakewalk; the risks of strategic overreach are both imminent and significant. Moreover, the big losses incurred by Israel (despite heavy Israeli military censorship) and the potential blowback in case of a military land invasion are not to be underrated. Furthermore, the Israeli Premier could soon face critical internal constraints that complicate Israel’s war calculus. Netanyahu’s leadership is mired in domestic controversy, including widespread protests, judicial reform backlash, and divisions within Israel’s civil-military apparatus. These internal fractures may limit the government’s ability to sustain a prolonged military campaign or achieve maximalist objectives.
Is it possible to turn back from the precipice?
At this critical juncture, diplomacy remains the only viable path forward. Backchannel negotiations between Iran and Israel, potentially facilitated by the United States, are essential. The UN Security Council must urgently initiate mediation involving neutral countries, with a regional summit hosted by states such as Qatar or Oman to reopen communication channels.
However, significant challenges remain: Israel is issuing ultimatums and is not interest in discussion, while Iran requests a cessation of hostilities first. In the short term, a ceasefire and confidence-building measures supervised by international observers remain possible.
Iran faces two clear options: either continue the conflict, which risks direct U.S. involvement and a broader devastation or accept U.S. diktat and scrap its nuclear and military ambitions. For Iran, the path forward is no longer about victory or negotiation—it’s about survival in a moment where it is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
