Israel-Iran War: How We Got Here, What it Means & What's to Come

Morocco World

a day ago

The current conflict between Israel and Iran represents one of the most complex and decisive geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East in the 21 st century. This rivalry holds multiple dimensions, ranging from nuclear issues to proxy networks, including the recent direct military escalations of 2024-2025.
The Israeli-Iranian confrontation is much more than a simple bilateral conflict: it is part of a regional geopolitical realignment in which security, religious, and geostrategic issues intersect. The recent shift toward direct confrontations marks a historic break in a conflict long characterized by proxy warfare and clandestine operations.
The escalation is a culmination of one of the most complex and enduring geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East. Although no direct war has broken out between the two until just recently on June 12, their hostilities have manifested overtime through proxy wars, cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, and an arms race.
Causes of the conflict and latent hostility
Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Israel and Iran maintained discreet but pragmatic relations under the Shah's regime. However, the advent of the Islamic Republic marked an ideological turning point. Iran's former supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini described Israel as an 'illegitimate Zionist entity,' while Israel perceived Iran as an existential threat.
Iran has developed a controversial nuclear program, which Israel considers a direct threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself has stated that 'If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be the end of the Middle East as we know it.'
At the same time, Iran supports groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, using 'proxy wars' to weaken Israel.
For several decades, relations between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran have oscillated between latent hostility and indirect clashes. However, the escalations this week marked a turning point: for the first time, Israel instigated a large-scale offensive directly striking Iranian territory with Operation 'Rising Lion'. In this analysis, we will examine the the strategic motivations, geopolitical stakes, and regional consequences of this unprecedented war.
During the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Shah's regime maintained pragmatic relations with Israel, but after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, Tehran severed these ties and made the destruction of the Jewish state an ideological principle.
Post-revolutionary Iran developed a strategy of regional hegemony based on exporting its Islamic revolution, viewing Israel as a major obstacle to this ambition. The Islamic Republic's anti-Israel rhetoric, embodied in repeated statements by its leaders calling for Israel's destruction, is a central element of the conflict. Since the 2000s, the Iranian nuclear issue has been fueling tension. Israel considers any prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to be an existential threat.
Operation 'Rising Lion'
Fast forward to June 12, when Israel launched its unprecedented military offensive targeting strategic targets in Iran. This action marks a major escalation in a conflict that has been simmering for more than forty years. According to the reports from Times of Israel and Reuters, Operation 'Rising Lion' was launched after the Mossad revealed that Iran had reached a level of uranium enrichment deemed critical.
The operation gets its name based on a bible verse that Netanyahu quoted during his speech launching the attack: 'Behold, the people shall rise up as a lion… he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks the blood of the slain.' (Number 23:34) The message sums up Israel's determination to strike before Iran reaches the nuclear threshold.
The operation combined air strikes, cyberattacks, and targeted raids, involving precision air strikes, cyber attacks on nuclear infrastructure, and covert actions on Iranian soil. As a Mossad officer quoted by The Times of Israel explained: 'This is our largest coordinated strike since Osiraq — and this time, Iran itself is the theater.' Al Jazeera reports that Iran considers the strikes a 'direct declaration of war…and will respond on every possible front.' Israel's Sunni allies, notably certain Gulf states, tacitly support the operation, fearing Iranian regional hegemony themselves.
Iran's nuclear program: the central issue in the conflict
Iran's nuclear program is at the heart of the current confrontation. The IAEA has announced that Iran is no longer in compliance with its nuclear obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), marking a significant escalation in the crisis.
Analysis of Iran's nuclear capabilities reveals several major concerns: Uranium enrichment : Iran has significantly increased its stocks of enriched uranium, far exceeding the limits imposed by the 2015 Vienna Agreement (JCPOA). Nuclear infrastructure : The development of fortified underground facilities, particularly in Fordow and Natanz, greatly complicates any preventive military intervention.
For Israel, a nuclear Iran represents an existential threat. For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran would strengthen Tehran and its proxy forces, further destabilizing the region while severely limiting Israel's strategic options.
Consequences of Operation 'Rising Lion'
Israel's operation, which is being coined in Western media as a 'preemptive strike' aimed to temporarily neutralize Iran's nuclear program and reaffirm Israeli security doctrine. The strikes destroyed several Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz and Fordow, as well as military bases affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The operation amplified the polarization between the pro-Western bloc (Israel, Gulf States) and the Shiite axis (Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias). Some Arab countries, although publicly hostile to Israel, viewed Iran's weakening favorably, while the US, fully backing their Israeli ally, indicates they are allegedly trying to contain the escalation from becoming an all-out war.
The operation strengthened the internal consensus around the Netanyahu government. It pushed political divisions to the background and revitalized the security discourse. Paradoxically, the strikes united the Iranian population around the regime, despite economic protests. Iranian authorities announced an acceleration of the nuclear program, making Israel's long-term objective uncertain.
This operation, however, raised a debate on the legality of preemptive strikes and the international system's ability to control nuclear proliferation. Operation 'Rising Lion' temporarily limited Iran's nuclear capability, but opened a new era of regional instability. Its consequences go beyond the simple Israeli-Iranian confrontation: they raise questions about the balance of nuclear deterrence, the role of external powers, and respect for international law. The Middle East, once again, finds itself at a strategic crossroads where each strike, each response, can redefine the regional order for decades to come.
This unprecedented war reveals the failure of traditional deterrence mechanisms and raises the question of all-out war in the Middle East. Some analysts fear an uncontrollable conflagration, while others see this escalation as a window for new negotiations under pressure. The United States, while supporting Israel, fears this will lead to uncontrollable regional insecurity an uncontrollable regional conflagration. The Gulf countries, for their part, remain officially silent but welcome the limitation of Iranian influence. ''Rising Lion'' reveals the erosion of deterrence mechanisms and the limits of diplomatic negotiations. Some experts believe that Israel has pushed Iran back by a year or two without resolving the issue in a lasting way.
What's Next ?
This operation, described as an 'existential necessity' by the Netanyahu, triggered an unprecedented escalation in a Middle East already fragmented by asymmetric conflicts and ideological rivalries. Faced with this new reality, a crucial question arises: what are the possible short and long-term perspectives and scenarios ?
Strengthening the deterrence doctrine: As mentioned prior, the operation reaffirmed Israel's doctrine of preemptive strikes. In the short term, the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure provided Israel with strategic respite and sent a message of firmness to its regional enemies. Domestically, the operation allowed Netanyahu to strengthen his political legitimacy. In fact, according to the Jerusalem Post, public opinion polls show a surge in support for the government following the perceived success of the operation.
However, on the international stage, support remains mixed. As Western allies, particularly the US, fear an uncontrolled escalation, ironically, analysts predict that the Israeli strike could motivate Tehran to resume its nuclear activities more quickly.
Intensification of proxy wars: Iran is activating its networks, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen.
These indirect fronts extend the conflict well beyond the Israeli-Iranian borders, and the international community fears a spiral. Israeli strikes on Syria or Iraq to target Iranian convoys are likely, and this increased militarization could involve other powers – namely Russia, the US and Turkiye.
At the same time, some analysts are predicting a resumption of indirect diplomatic negotiations via Oman, Qatar, or the European Union to stabilize the region. The revival of the JCPOA (Vienna Agreement) remains theoretical, but symbolically powerful. As the operation has exposed Israel to cyberattacks and precision missile attacks, the Iron Dome missile defense system is stretched to its limits and other avenues of de-escalation are vital.
On a legal societal level, the legitimacy of the use of preventive force divides the international community, calling into question the sustainability of a purely military strategy.
Operation 'Rising Lion' has certainly achieved its immediate objectives, but it has opened a new era of uncertainty and risks for regional and global stability. What comes next will depend on the actors' ability to restore a minimum of dialogue while controlling the logic of revenge and technological escalation. Although Netayahu may warn that the demise of the Middle East is if Iran has nuclear weapons, paradoxically, each strike on behalf of Israel may bring this prophecy closer.
A growing geopolitical shift
The current war between Israel and Iran is the result of prolonged ideological hostility, exacerbated by nuclear proliferation and the failure of regional balances. ''Rising Lion'' illustrates Israel's willingness to defend by force what it considers to be a vital red line. But, this warlike logic calls into question the stability of the entire Middle East and calls for a rethinking of collective security mechanisms.
The current Israeli-Iranian confrontation is much more than a bilateral conflict: it reveals regional and global geopolitical shifts. The recent shift to direct confrontation marks a historic break that is redefining the strategic balance in the Middle East.
The nuclear issue remains central, but is now linked to a new regional landscape characterized by the weakening of Iran's proxy network and the emergence of new alliance dynamics. This development ushers in a period of major strategic uncertainty, in which the choices made in the coming months will determine the regional security architecture for decades to come.
Analysis of this confrontation also reveals the limitations of traditional approaches to international crisis management, requiring renewed reflection on mechanisms for conflict prevention and regional stabilization in a context of growing multipolarity. Tags: Gaza IsraelIranIran Israel WarIsraelNetanyahuOperation Rising LionUS