Dr. Mohamed Shareef Asees
Introduction
Tensions between Israel and Iran have been escalating for many years, rooted in deep political, ideological, and security concerns. While the two countries have never been in a formal war, they have long been engaged in indirect conflict through cyber-attacks, proxy forces, and covert operations. In recent months, however, these tensions have turned into direct military confrontation. In a dramatic shift, Israel launched airstrikes inside Iran, targeting key nuclear and military sites. Iran responded with a large-scale missile attack, marking a dangerous new phase in their rivalry. This article aims to examine the background of this sudden escalation, the reasons behind Israel’s attack, Iran’s response, and the broader consequences for the Middle East and global politics. It also explores possible diplomatic paths to reduce the risk of a wider war.
Historical Background
The relationship between Israel and Iran has changed dramatically over the past several decades. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the two countries had relatively close ties, particularly in trade, intelligence, and regional cooperation. However, this shifted after the revolution, when Iran’s new Islamic regime adopted an openly anti-Israel position, calling for the end of the Israeli state and supporting groups opposed to it, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Since then, the two nations have become regional adversaries. Israel views Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East and its support for armed groups as a serious threat to its national security. Iran, in turn, sees Israel as an extension of Western power in the region and a threat to the Muslim world, especially in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Tensions grew even further in the 2000s, when Iran began expanding its nuclear program. Israel, along with many Western nations, feared that Iran was secretly working to build nuclear weapons—a claim Iran has consistently denied, saying its program is for peaceful purposes. In response, Israel has carried out cyber-attacks, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria. Over time, these shadow conflicts have become more direct and dangerous. The recent exchange of airstrikes and missiles marks a serious turning point in a long-running rivalry that has deep historical, political, and religious roots.
Why Israel Attacked — Operation Rising Lion
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major military operation called Operation Rising Lion. It involved around 200 fighter jets, drones, and cyber teams targeting over many strategic sites across Iran. These included nuclear facilities like Natanz and Fordow, missile bases, and command centers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The operation was carefully planned over many months and involved a mix of air power, intelligence, and cyber warfare. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strike was necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He called Iran an “immediate threat” to Israel’s existence and linked the operation to the historical promise of “never again” following the Holocaust. Israel’s position has long been that it will not allow Iran to become a nuclear-armed state. However, reports from U.S. intelligence agencies suggested that Iran had not yet made a final decision to build a nuclear bomb. Despite this, Israel’s government believed it was crucial to act early to delay or destroy Iran’s nuclear progress. The attacks caused significant damage above ground, especially at the Natanz nuclear site. Some underground facilities, such as those at Fordow, were less affected. Still, the operation succeeded in killing several high-ranking Iranian officials, including top IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists.
While Israeli officials described the operation as a success, international observers warned of serious long-term consequences. Some analysts noted that although the airstrikes had weakened Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, they could also escalate the conflict and reduce the chances for diplomacy. The operation sparked concern around the world. Many feared that this would trigger a broader regional war and further destabilize the Middle East. Others questioned whether military action could truly prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program in the future
Iran’s Response
Just hours after Israel’s airstrike, Iran launched a significant counterattack involving hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones targeting several Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem. The missile strikes were described by Iranian officials as a defensive response aimed at deterring further aggression. In addition to its own missile attacks, Iran’s allied groups in the region were placed on high alert. While proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen increased their readiness, they did not carry out major offensive operations during this period. Prior to the missile launches, Israeli intelligence operations—including covert drone sabotage missions—had targeted Iranian missile systems, limiting the number of missiles Iran was able to deploy effectively. This reflects the complex nature of the conflict, with both sides engaging in strategic and technological measures alongside conventional attacks. Iran’s response underscored the seriousness of the confrontation and raised concerns about potential wider escalation in the region, emphasizing the fragile balance of power between the two nations.
Global and Regional Implications
Great Power Responses
The United States stayed out of direct fighting but supported Israel by helping with its missile defense systems. At the same time, the U.S. warned Iran not to attack American forces or interests in the region. Former President Trump encouraged Iran to return to diplomatic talks, mixing support for Israel with efforts to bring both sides back to negotiations. Russia and China called for calm and urged both sides to avoid escalating the conflict. However, both countries also viewed the situation as a way to challenge U.S. influence in the Middle East.
Nuclear Proliferation Risks
This conflict resembles past Israeli strikes on nuclear sites in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007). While those attacks delayed nuclear programs, they didn’t stop them completely. Experts warn that military strikes might push Iran to hide its nuclear work underground or focus on other weapons technology. There is also concern that seeing Iran under threat might encourage other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to develop their own nuclear programs.
Regional Security Architecture
Amid rising tensions, there has been talk of a Middle East coalition called the “N7,” which could include Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Given ongoing instability in countries like Syria and Lebanon, many believe that creating a broader diplomatic framework may be the best way to prevent further military conflicts in the long term.
Pathways to De-escalation & Diplomacy
The trust between Israel and Iran is very weak right now. Iran pulled out of talks held in Oman, and Israel has taken a stronger military stance. But communication channels are not completely closed. Countries like Oman, Turkey, Qatar, and the European Union are ready to help restart dialogue between the two sides. The first step toward peace could be a temporary ceasefire. This might include ways for the two militaries to warn each other and avoid accidental attacks, restarting inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities, and creating safe zones around important energy sites.
Israeli leaders have said their attacks are aimed at the Iranian government, not its people. At the same time, Iran faces pressure from its own citizens to avoid a full-scale war. This fragile situation creates an opportunity for peace talks and mediation. In the long run, the region might need a new kind of security agreement. This could include limits on nuclear weapons, economic cooperation, and regional partnerships. To succeed, such an agreement would need support from the U.S., the European Union, and Gulf Arab countries.
Conclusion
The conflict between Israel and Iran in June 2025 marks a serious turning point. Missiles have flown, and many innocent people have suffered. Homes have been destroyed, and families mourn their losses. While the military strikes may have slowed Iran’s nuclear progress, they also pushed Iran to strengthen hidden parts of its program. Both countries have shown strong determination: Israel with force, and Iran with resistance. Ending this conflict will take more than just military actions. It requires careful dialogue, starting with small steps to build trust and growing into a broad agreement involving many countries. This will need courage, patience, and vision. Without it, the conflict risks spreading and causing even greater harm in the region.
References
Al Jazeera – “Iran responds to Israeli attack with ballistic missile barrage” (June 14, 2025)
The Washington Post – “Israeli airstrikes hit Natanz and Isfahan; Iran vows revenge”
BBC News – “What we know so far about the Israel–Iran escalation”
The New York Times – “Israel strikes deep into Iran: What’s next for nuclear diplomacy?”
Haaretz – “Analysis: Netanyahu gambles big with Iran strike”
Jerusalem Post – “Operation ‘Rising Lion’: Targets and Tactics”
CNN – “Biden, Trump react to Israeli offensive: White House calls for calm”
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – “The Nuclear Shadow over the Middle East”
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – Latest Monitoring Report on Iran’s Uranium Enrichment (May 2025)
Middle East Institute (MEI) – “How Israel’s Iran Strike Changes the Strategic Equation”
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – “Iran’s Air Defense and Deterrence Networks”
The Atlantic Council – “Middle East Proxy Conflicts in 2025: Where Does This Lead?”
