From proxy war to direct conflict: New strategic era in West Asia

First Post

12 hours ago

The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response read more
The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel and the direct bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the US dramatically ended in a fragile ceasefire – as usual announced by President Trump. In West Asia a direct war between Tel Aviv and Tehran has mostly been seen with the deepest concern, and everyone hoped the inevitable would not happen as the two rivals continued to suffer from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) syndrome.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, the worst has been averted, and all sides have claimed victory in the bargain as the existential threat matrix remains robust. It is perhaps a matter of time that the two will try to decimate the other in a clandestine or a direct confrontation. This time round, even though not a very major destruction of Iran's nuclear programme may not have taken place, surely it may have set back its enrichment capability to some extent.
Hopefully, Tehran and Washington will resume talks on the 'Trumpian Deal' in lieu of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been interrupted by Israeli strikes and the decapitation of Iranian military and nuclear leadership. Iran retaliated strongly and even avenged the US strikes by hitting, even if symbolically, at their Al-Udaid base in Qatar. Doha played a remarkable role in the ensuing ceasefire.
The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel ignited a deeply concerning regional crisis with far-reaching multidimensional geopolitical and economic ramifications. What commenced as a prolonged, simmering rivalry violently erupted into direct military confrontations. This has inevitably drawn in external powers and cast an ominous shadow over the stability of the Middle East.
It is useful to examine the current instances of ceasefire violations, discuss the significant role of US involvement in shaping its direction, and assess the impact on Iran's nuclear programme and strategic capabilities. Break down the effects on global oil prices and the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, and highlight the actions and motivations of various external players. Also explore the repercussions for neighbouring Gulf states, and finally, consider the uncertain possibility of regime change in Iran.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The situation developed quickly, marked by a dangerous cycle of direct military escalation. It is apparent that there is an increase in hostilities, with the United States openly joining Israel's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program. This unprecedented military effort, known as 'Operation Midnight Hammer' by the US, involved a major air assault that commenced on June 13, 2025, followed by coordinated strikes on June 21, 2025.
These actions represent a significant shift from earlier, secretive operations to open, large-scale military intervention. They involved advanced B-2 bombers and powerful 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators targeting Iran's underground nuclear sites. In response, Iran quickly launched its retaliatory actions, resulting in escalating violence. This ongoing cycle demonstrated a deeply rooted pattern of hostility, pushing the region closer to the brink of a large-scale war.
The airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 are not isolated. They reflect a profound intervention with serious implications for regional stability and global security. The current situation suggests intensification of the conflict rather than a clear path to de-escalation, as both sides remain committed to asserting their strength through military means. 'Peace through Strength' appears to be the dictum.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Amid rising tensions, attempts to reduce conflict through diplomacy and ceasefires have proven fragile and largely ineffective. On June 24, 2025, it was revealed that, despite a ceasefire agreement slated to start, both Israel and Iran continued to fight with no decrease in intensity.
Global figures, like US President Donald Trump, expressed strong disapproval, accusing both parties of violating the ceasefire and calling for immediate tension reduction. This consistent disregard for peace efforts highlights deep mistrust, conflicting strategic goals, and a lack of reconciliation that fuels this ongoing conflict. The military and political goals of both sides currently seem to overshadow any genuine interest in lasting peace, favouring confrontation over a temporary truce.
US involvement is shaping the conflict significantly, turning what began as a regional issue into a potential international crisis. The US military's direct strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites as part of 'Operation Midnight Hammer' mark a critical shift from previous, often indirect actions. This aggressive stance aims to weaken Iran's nuclear capabilities permanently and possibly alter the regime's long-term strategy. While these strikes could pressure Iran to negotiate, they also pose the risk of sparking a broader, more destructive conflict with widespread consequences.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The United States is navigating a delicate balance, trying to deter Iran's aggressive actions while avoiding a full-blown war. This balance becomes riskier with each military action taken. The partnership between the US and Israel affects the conflict's intensity, geographic scope, and ultimate resolution. Every decision made carries significant weight for both regional and global stability. Ironically, everyone, including Iran, doesn't want a nuclear bomb.
Iran's nuclear program has consistently been a primary target of intensified military operations. Early assessments after the US and Israeli strikes indicate serious damage to three key nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Natanz, recognised as Iran's largest uranium enrichment centre, reportedly suffered major damage to its above-ground electrical substation and its pilot fuel enrichment facility. Fordow, designed to be heavily fortified and buried, was bombed, causing extensive destruction and visible smoke. Isfahan, suspected of possibly holding near weapons-grade nuclear fuel, also faced direct US missile strikes, leading to the destruction of buildings at the site.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
These orchestrated attacks aimed to significantly hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions. If successful, 'Operation Midnight Hammer' could stop Iran from increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or enriching existing stockpiles to weapons-grade levels. However, it has been observed that Iran already has enough uranium to make up to nine nuclear bombs, which means it still has the materials to create nuclear weapons. The longer the location of this highly enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown, the greater the risk of proliferation and global anxiety.
Concerns persist about potential nuclear fallout and the risk of strikes igniting explosions that spread nuclear materials, raising health and environmental worries. Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear program despite these strikes, signalling that destroying facilities may not be enough to disrupt its strategic goals. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inability to effectively monitor Iran's uranium stockpile, combined with its confirmation of serious structural damage but no immediate release of radiation, adds to global concerns about nuclear proliferation and complicates the oversight of nuclear materials. The Iranian Parliament had passed a bill to suspend funding and cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of a partisan attitude. It even threatened to reconsider Iran's membership of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT).
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The escalating conflict has had immediate and significant effects on global oil prices, creating volatility in international markets. The targeting of Iranian assets and heightened geopolitical tensions have pushed Brent crude prices above $80 per barrel after the US strikes. These prices have remained elevated, fluctuating in the $70-$78 range, significantly above pre-escalation levels. The potential for the conflict to expand or for Iranian oil exports to stop entirely due to blockades could drive Brent crude prices to $90 per barrel and higher throughout 2026.
The worst-case scenario would be the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint. If that happened, Brent crude prices could soar to $130 per barrel. This illustrates the fragile nature of global energy markets amid Middle Eastern instability. Any significant disruption in supply from a major producer like Iran has immediate and severe economic consequences that spread worldwide, affecting transportation to manufacturing costs.
The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, playing a vital role in global oil and LNG markets. The ongoing conflict poses a serious risk to exports moving through this crucial route. Although commercial traffic continues, the threat to global energy and maritime interests remains high if the conflict escalates. Iran's ability to export around 2.2 million barrels of oil per day through Hormuz underscores its strategic importance.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Any major obstruction or a complete closure of the Strait, even temporarily, would have catastrophic effects on global energy security and economic health, prompting widespread contingency planning and panic across major oil-consuming nations. The impact on the global economy if this lifeline were cut could lead to an energy crisis and a severe economic downturn.
External players are navigating this unpredictable landscape with varying degrees of involvement and concern. Russia, for example, aims to maintain good relations with all parties, seeing the conflict as fluid and likely to change. Its partnership with Iran does not require military intervention in Tehran's defence, but Russia is genuinely worried about a pro-Western shift or regime collapse in Iran, given its broader geopolitical interests.
Russia wants to benefit from fluctuating oil prices and arms sales but is reluctant to commit militarily. China, another major external actor, consistently calls for de-escalation through diplomatic means but has largely remained non-committal. It prioritises its significant economic ties with all parties, including vital energy imports from the region. Gulf countries, Iran's immediate neighbours who feel the brunt of regional instability, have publicly avoided condemning US actions while not explicitly supporting them. Instead, they are trying to navigate a delicate path to minimise the conflict's impact on their territories and economies. Their actions reflect a deep concern for regional stability and a desire to avoid deeper involvement in a potentially devastating conflict.
The conflict's effects on the Gulf states are substantial, threatening both their economic stability and security. Many of these countries are major oil and gas producers facing direct threats to energy exports and increased maritime insecurity. The potential for regional instability to deter foreign investment and harm their tourism sectors is also significant.
Furthermore, rising tensions between Iran and the US-Israel alliance force these nations to reassess their defence strategies, strengthen security, and rethink long-standing diplomatic ties. Although they publicly seek to stay neutral, immense pressure on their security and economic interests compels them to recalibrate their complex relationships with Western powers and an unpredictable Iran. The fear of being caught in the crossfire of a larger conflict is a constant anxiety that shapes their strategic choices, pushing them to respond quickly to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
Finally, the possibility of regime change in Iran remains a complex and uncertain issue. The recent US strikes, aimed at undermining Iran's nuclear capabilities, also intend to put pressure on the Iranian regime from within. Economic challenges in Iran are adding to existing domestic unrest, reflected in projected GDP decline, high unemployment, and rising inflation. The hints of Iranian regime change and reduced missile stockpiles further weakened the regime's military standing.
While the US may wish to alter Iran's path, history shows that external interventions rarely lead to desired political changes and often result in unexpected consequences. The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response. Israel needed to be reined in from indulging in the assassination of the supreme leader by President Trump, who in any case passed on the military authority to the Revolutionary Guards and identified his successor. This would have led to a major challenge.
For the time being, the fragile peace and ceasefire are holding on as the Gazans once again face the wrath of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). With various external powers pursuing their interests, the Gulf states must deal with the direct fallout of increased regional instability and uncertainty. A constant united international response is essential to ease tensions and stop the region from falling into a catastrophic war, which would have unimaginable global effects. Even if it was a fixed match, Tehran will have to reassure its Gulf partners of its true intent, as sovereignty violations are taken very seriously. Qatar said that these attacks on US bases there have left a 'scar' in their relations with Tehran.
Anil Trigunayat is a distinguished Fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation and Vedika Znwar is a researcher in international relations and geo-politics. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.