by Asad Mirza
For years, the confrontation unfolded through cyberattacks, proxy warfare, and covert operations. That pattern has now changed. Iran’s missile strike on Israel in April and Israel’s bombing of Iranian territory in June signal a shift to direct military confrontation.
Israel’s latest attacks on Iran risk igniting a full-scale war, with the potential to plunge an already volatile region into deeper chaos. The consequences would reverberate far beyond the Middle East, threatening global oil supply chains, pulling in major international powers, and further destabilising regional alliances and fault lines.
On June 13, Israel launched airstrikes deep into Iranian territory, marking a severe escalation in hostilities between two long-standing adversaries. The operation, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, involved a large fleet of Israeli fighter jets striking targets linked to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile development facilities, and high-ranking military officials. Explosions were reported in Tehran and at the Natanz uranium enrichment site.
In a recorded statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the moment as pivotal in the country’s history. Defence Minister Israel Katz declared a ‘special situation’ following the attacks, while military sources confirmed that Iranian nuclear facilities had been struck.
According to Israel’s Channel 12, Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, may have been killed in the attack, alongside several senior nuclear scientists. Iranian authorities have yet to confirm the casualties.
Prelude to a Strike
The assault followed a prolonged period of mounting tension. Israeli officials claimed to possess intelligence showing that Iran had amassed sufficient enriched uranium to produce multiple nuclear weapons. A senior Israeli military figure told Reuters that Iran could assemble up to fifteen bombs within days. The operation, according to Israeli leadership, was a pre-emptive act to neutralise what it termed an existential threat amid the collapse of diplomatic efforts.
Iran has repeatedly denied that it seeks to build a nuclear weapon, asserting instead its right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. This process, which alters uranium atoms to yield nuclear fuel, remains a focal point of contention. Earlier in the week, Iranian officials claimed they had obtained a cache of classified documents exposing Israel’s own undeclared nuclear arsenal.
The deteriorating diplomatic climate framed the strike. Nuclear talks between the United States and Iran, scheduled to be held on 15 June in Oman, were already under considerable strain. It is now uncertain whether those talks will proceed.
An Uneasy Ally
Although widely recognised as Israel’s closest ally, the United States has publicly distanced itself from the assault. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that Israel had acted alone. “Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” he said. He further warned, “Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”
One day prior to the attack, President Donald Trump delivered contradictory statements. On 12 June, Al Jazeera reported that Trump acknowledged the possibility of a “massive conflict” in the Middle East and admitted that Israeli military action against Iran was “possible.” Later that same day, he expressed a preference for restraint, stating that he would “love to avoid the conflict” and implied that Washington preferred Israel to delay any military action while negotiations with Tehran continued.
That evening, Trump reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to diplomacy. “My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran,” he wrote on social media. “They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon.”
Despite its public statements, the United States maintains a significant role in the conflict’s broader trajectory. While disavowing direct military involvement, Washington continues to pressurise Iran through sanctions, offer diplomatic backing to Israel, and simultaneously pursue negotiations through indirect channels. This layered approach reveals the complex and often conflicting dimensions of US engagement in the region.
Shift Towards Open War
The Israel–Iran conflict is a protracted contest for regional dominance, shaped by ideological divisions, security threats, and clashing strategic ambitions. Israel views Iran as its most serious threat, citing Tehran’s nuclear programme, repeated calls for Israel’s destruction, and ongoing support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In Israeli eyes, a nuclear-armed Iran would irrevocably alter the region’s balance of power and pose a direct threat to its survival.
Iran casts itself as a champion of resistance against Israel and uses its state media and regional proxies to challenge Israel’s legitimacy. It finances and equips militias across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza, many of which have conducted attacks on Israeli targets.
For years, the confrontation unfolded through cyberattacks, proxy warfare, and covert operations. That pattern has now changed. Iran’s missile strike on Israel in April and Israel’s bombing of Iranian territory in June signal a shift to direct military confrontation. The transition to open, state-level warfare reduces the space for deniability and heightens the risks of escalation.
Strategic Depth and Escalation Risks
Andrea Stricker, deputy director and research fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, told Bloomberg that disabling Iran’s nuclear facilities would require sustained bombardment. “It would take multiple days of fighter jets dropping bombs or launching missiles at the sites,” she said. “They would ideally use heavy bunker buster bombs, in order to penetrate the facilities. The Fordow enrichment site lies about sixty to ninety metres deep. The Iranians have also discussed bringing a new enrichment facility online that is over one hundred metres underground near Natanz.”
Stricker added that significantly delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions would demand intensive bombing over several days. “Ideally, they would have had the US involved because the US still has the heaviest bunker busters, but Israel has some that they could use on their own.”
Rodger Shanahan, a Middle East analyst and former Australian army officer, warned that the most severe form of Iranian retaliation would be an indiscriminate strike on Israeli civilian areas. “That would be the red line. If it is indiscriminate, then that is when you enter a kind of death spiral,” he said.
Mara Rudman, professor at the University of Virginia and a former deputy envoy at the State Department, told Bloomberg Television that a single Israeli strike was unlikely. “Given the concerns and the objectives of removing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and considering what Israel has available, I believe people should expect a long and extended campaign. Iran would respond in different ways,” she said.
Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore’s former permanent secretary for foreign affairs and former chairman of the Middle East Institute, suggested that the conflict would remain regional. “Most Sunni Arab states will quietly support Israel. Iran may launch terrorist attacks worldwide as part of its retaliation, but it can only become a wider war if major powers intervene on Iran’s side.”
Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Israel had declared it was not seeking regime change but was narrowly focused on nuclear capabilities. He noted, however, that “if some rumoured targets in Iran pan out, it is difficult to see how that does not appear to be a broader political war aim to the Iranians. Really dangerous.”
A large-scale war between Israel and Iran would aggravate a region already defined by instability. Iran’s continued missile development and its firm stance on uranium enrichment, along with US red lines and faltering diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran, have increased the risk of conflict. Such a war could disturb global oil markets, involve foreign powers, and deepen an already entrenched regional crisis.
(The author is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs, environmental issues, an interfaith practitioner, and a media consultant. Ideas are personal.)
