Beyond Proxies: The conflict that will morph only but won’t die down.And the only morph that remainsto be seen is the nuclear
Iran and Israel have turned head-to-head in recent months. Earlier what used to be proxy wars have become direct confrontations. What’s unfolding now is no longer episodic—it’s systemic, strategic, and ideological. When Israeli intelligence operatives assassinated top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020, Iran’s retaliation was delayed but calculated. When Iran-backed militias fired drones into Israel’s periphery in 2021 and 2022, Tel Aviv responded with precision strikes—always just short of full war. For nearly two decades, the Iran–Israel conflict existed in the realm of grey zones, proxy corridors, and plausible deniability. But the past few months have redrawn the rules of engagement. With Iran launching direct missile attacks against Israeli targets and Israel allegedly coordinating with the U.S. in air strikes that hit Fordow, Natanz, and Narang—three of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites—the simmering hostility has crossed into dangerous new terrain. This isn’t a flare-up. It is a systemic shift. And it is unlikely to die down easily. Most regional wars are rooted in territorial disputes. The Iran–Israel conflict is different. It is not about geography; it is about ideology, identity, and influence. For Iran, Israel represents the postcolonial Western order, and its presence in the region is seen not merely as a foreign implant, but as a historical and religious transgression. For Israel, Iran is the one adversary that refuses to normalize its existence. And now, it is the one power in the region that might soon have the means to threaten Israel’s security through nuclear deterrence. That makes this conflict existential on both ends—politically and psychologically. Until recently, the Iran–Israel battlefield was spread across multiple geographies—Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen—through proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and various Shia militias. Israel used its air force and cyber tools to degrade Iranian influence without directly engaging Tehran. This strategic ambiguity is now fading. Iran’s retaliatory strikes following the assassination of IRGC commanders and the bombing of its consulates in Syria were not outsourced. They were state-sanctioned and overt. Iran launched missiles into Israeli-occupied territories. The IRGC took public credit. This is no longer about plausible deniability—it is about strategic messaging. What follows such directness is escalation, not de-escalation. Unless checked, what was once a “cold” conflict could become a full-blown war with unpredictable consequences. Any hopes that diplomacy might de-escalate the crisis must contend with the rubble of past efforts. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was perhaps the last serious attempt to bring Iran into a nuclear agreement framework. That deal offered sanctions relief in exchange for caps on uranium enrichment. But in 2018, the U.S. under Donald Trump withdrew from it unilaterally, even though Iran had complied with its terms. Since then, trust has evaporated. Iran accelerated its enrichment. Israel ramped up its sabotage efforts. European mediators tried to resuscitate the deal, but failed. Today, any attempt to revive the JCPOA would require not just technical concessions, but a complete overhaul of trust—a near-impossible feat when both sides believe the other is operating in bad faith. Leadership matters. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has built much of his political legacy on confronting Iran. His brand of politics thrives on projecting strength, decisiveness, and resistance against what he calls “Iranian terror.” To back down now, especially after recent attacks, would be seen as weakness—both domestically and regionally. In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sees himself as the custodian of revolutionary defiance. His worldview is shaped by decades of perceived Western betrayal, from the 1953 CIA-backed coup to the Iran–Iraq War, the sanctions, and the assassination of nuclear scientists. Neither of these leaders is wired for compromise. Both see their respective national identities at stake. That makes any truce unstable and fragile. The most worrying dimension is, of course, the nuclear one. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it has never formally acknowledged them.
“The Iran–Israel conflict is unlikely to escalate into a full-scale conventional war, yet it will not diminish entirely. Instead, it is expected to evolve into various forms of warfare, including cyberattacks, assassinations, covert drone operations, and economic sabotage. The nature of the conflict will change, but hostilities will persist. Even if global powers manage to establish a temporary peace, the fundamental animosity between the two nations will remain intact. Without a clear political vision, courage, and willingness to compromise from both sides, the region is destined to remain trapped in a cycle of escalating conflict, with each iteration posing greater risks than the previous one”.
Iran, for its part, insists that it does not seek a bomb, but its breakout time—the period needed to produce a nuclear weapon if it chose to—has significantly decreased. With the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in June 2025, what was once a clandestine ambition may now become a declared necessity for Iran. From Tehran’s perspective, nuclear capability may be the only insurance against invasion, regime change, or further strikes. If Iran decides to weaponize its nuclear program, Israel may perceive it as a casus belli. That could lead to a pre-emptive war. And if Iran succeeds in crossing the nuclear threshold, a regional arms race may follow—with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey reconsidering their own nuclear options. The U.S. role is pivotal. Washington has long been Israel’s chief ally and Iran’s principal adversary. The Biden administration had hoped to avoid direct involvement in a Middle East war, especially after the long and costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, by launching direct air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Washington has removed its diplomatic gloves. While the Pentagon claims the strikes were surgical and defensive, their political meaning is unmistakable: the U.S. is back in the region’s frontlines, and this time not as a mediator, but as an enforcer.This reduces the space for diplomacy and increases the risk of miscalculation. The Iran–Israel conflict now threatens to destabilize an already volatile region. The Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relations with several Arab states, are under strain. The Gulf states fear being caught in the crossfire. Qatar and Oman have called for de-escalation. Lebanon, through Hezbollah, is already a launchpad for Iranian retaliation. In Iraq, Iran-backed militias are attacking American bases again. In Syria, Israeli airstrikes are increasing. And in Yemen, the Houthis have restarted their Red Sea attacks—turning global shipping lanes into potential war zones.The Iran–Israel conflict is no longer bilateral. It is regional, and its shockwaves are global. Theoretically, peace would require mutual recognition of sovereignty, rollback of proxy networks, regional security guarantees, and international supervision of nuclear programs. But practically, none of these seem achievable in the current environment. Iran views Israel as illegitimate and a colonizing force. Israel views Iran as an existential threat. Without fundamental shifts in these positions—or a change in leadership—any ceasefire would be tactical, not transformational. Moreover, both states draw domestic legitimacy from this conflict. For Iran’s regime, opposing Israel is part of its revolutionary identity. For Israel’s political elite, defying Iran garners political capital. The Iran–Israel conflict may not explode into a full-scale conventional war but it will not also fade into silence. It is likely to morph—into cyberattacks, assassinations, covert drone warfare, and economic sabotage. The battlefield will shift, but the battle will continue. Even if global powers broker a temporary calm, the underlying structure of hostility remains. Without political vision, courage, and compromise on both sides, the region will remain hostage to a cycle of conflict—each round more dangerous than the last.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi
[email protected]
