From proxy war to open conflict: The collapse of Israel–Iran deterrence

Shafaq News

8 hours ago

Shafaq News/ The long-standing shadow war between Israel and Iran has now entered its most dangerous phase. The transition from covert strikes and proxy skirmishes to direct missile exchanges across national borders marks a collapse of regional deterrence frameworks that had—however tenuously—held for over a decade.
This dramatic rupture became undeniable when Israeli forces launched Operation Rising Lion, a large-scale assault on Iranian soil targeting nuclear facilities and senior Revolutionary Guard figures. Iran responded within hours with True Promise 3, unleashing hundreds of missiles and drones on Israeli cities, including Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Petah Tikva.
'This is not a spontaneous conflict,' says Dr. Haitham al-Hiti, a political scientist at the University of Exeter. 'It's part of a broader regional restructuring—starting with Hezbollah assassinations, now moving through Iran's command structure, and possibly reaching Iraq and Lebanon.'
In this new phase, neither Israel's military supremacy nor Iran's rhetorical threats succeeded in deterring the other. Both sides crossed long-standing red lines, especially the taboo against direct state-to-state missile warfare.
Lebanese analyst George Alam underscores the strategic risks. 'Saudi Arabia is conducting wide-reaching communications with Washington, Tehran, and Europe to push for a temporary truce,' he notes, 'but the UN can't move freely without US approval—making any initiative vulnerable to obstruction.'
While diplomatic channels stall, the battlefield speaks louder. Iran's missile response struck both military and civilian targets. Israeli officials confirmed damage to civilian shelters and key infrastructure. Iran, in turn, suffered the loss of senior IRGC leaders, nuclear scientists, and civilians.
This breakdown in mutual restraint is not just tactical—it's deeply structural.
'Iran will not stop the war now,' says Saudi analyst Mohammed Hayoudi. 'The Israeli strike was massive, and it coincides with structural shifts in Syria, Israel's rising influence, and Washington's renewed presence in the region.'
These dynamics suggest that deterrence no longer functions as a stabilizing mechanism but rather as a catalyst for escalation. The former logic of "mutual hesitation" has been replaced by a race to impose facts on the ground.
Dr. Ramadan al-Badran, a Washington-based political analyst, points to a disturbing new phase. 'Missiles are now hitting civilian and economic infrastructure, not just military sites. This points to a breakdown of mutual deterrence and suggests all parties are waiting for exhaustion before even considering negotiations.'
In strategic terms, deterrence has given way to action without inhibition. This conflict is no longer about messaging or red lines; it's about reshaping the strategic environment through force.
If deterrence was ever a balancing tool between these rivals, it no longer holds. And without a stabilizing doctrine or credible diplomatic fallback, the region may be entering a cycle of self-perpetuating escalation—one that could drag surrounding states into its vortex.