The recent Iran-Israel conflict has emerged as a defining episode in Middle Eastern geopolitics, reshaping debates on security, sovereignty, and global power balances. It was not merely a military confrontation but a complex struggle that exposed the shifting dynamics of deterrence, alliances, and narratives in the region. This in-depth article, authored by six renowned writers from Pakistan and Iran, presents a comprehensive examination of the war and its far-reaching implications.
Historical context of Iran-Israel Hostility
By: Dr. Syed Nasir Sherazi, Faculty Member International Islamic University & President Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies, Islamabad
Iran underwent one of the most influential Islamic revolutions in 1979, a popular movement led by the spiritual leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. Revolutionary Iran emerged as a staunch enemy of American hegemony at both regional and global levels. “Neither East nor West, only the supremacy of Allah” became a cornerstone of Iran’s foreign policy.
The Israeli embassy was immediately handed over to the Palestinians & liberation of Palestine was declared the prime objective of the Islamic Republic, marking a significant shift from the Shah’s pro-Western policies. Resistance movements against the Israeli regime gained momentum after the revolution.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine grew stronger both militarily and politically. Hezbollah reclaimed southern Lebanon in 2000 and won the 2006 war imposed by Israel. Being followers of the Islamic Revolution, Hezbollah declared the complete liberation of Palestine as its ultimate goal. Both Hezbollah and Hamas successfully confronted Israel multiple times and secured the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” stretched from Tehran to Lebanon via Iraq and Syria, creating a geopolitical encirclement of Israel and posing an existential threat. American dominance in the region, heavily reliant on Israel, was increasingly challenged. The addition of Yemen as a committed ally capable of imposing a naval siege in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait intensified this challenge.
To counter Iran’s influence, America portrayed it as a threat to regional Arab allies and ramped up military deployments. Alongside overt hostilities, including the imposed Iran-Iraq War, the U.S. and Israel engaged in covert warfare assassinating nuclear scientists, targeting diplomats, and escalating psychological and cyber warfare.
From 1979 to the declaration of war in 2025, Iran remained the only Muslim country openly supporting Palestine. This led Israel to target key Iranian figures like Ismael Haniyeh, Nel Feroshan, and Qassem Soleimani, all assassinated under the joint U.S.-Israeli “decapitation policy.”
Role of Iran’s Nuclear Program in Escalating Tensions
By: Syed Fraz Hussain Naqvi, Head of Iran Program at Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad
Under the ‘Atoms for Peace’ initiative by the US, Iran’s nuclear program was developed during the 1950s under the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah. The main reasons behind establishing the nuclear program were threefold.
First, Shah wanted to modernize the country by acquiring the latest Western technology. Second, acquiring nuclear technology complemented the rising status of a country in its neighborhood and the region. Since Shah became the foremost ally of the US against the Soviet Union and had also undertaken the policeman role in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal of the British, nuclear technology further consolidated this steady rise. Third, Shah also tacitly upheld the ambitions of nuclear weapons amidst the regional development. Israel had already started its nuclear program and maintained nuclear ambiguity, while India had also conducted a nuclear test in 1974, which instilled the fear of a response by Pakistan.
Nonetheless, after the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini gave a ‘nuclear fatwa’ that prohibited the development, acquisition, and use of all such weapons that carry the risk of mass destruction. Under this new policy, the new administration of Iran dismantled the nuclear program. The Iran-Iraq war, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussain, and Western and regional support to Iraq led to a doctrinal shift within Iran’s policymaking circles.
During the 1990s, Iran’s nuclear program was revived with the help of China and Russia with the import of centrifuges and yellowcake material. The program got a major push during the tenure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for which Iran came under the UN and US sanctions. Since the program was in its infancy and its secrecy raised alarms in the West, negotiations became necessary, leading to the JCPOA. Since the US withdrawal from JCPOA and the return of sanctions, Iran restarted uranium enrichment and surpassed the 3.67 percent threshold.
Over subsequent years, Iran brought enrichment to 60 percent for 400 kilograms of uranium. From here, enrichment to 90 percent (i.e., weapon grade) is a matter of weeks. Diplomatic efforts during the Biden Administration failed. Trump agreed to renegotiations during his second term, but the process halted after Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13, 2025.
The Trump Administration’s support to Israel and the subsequent targeting of three Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, 2025, marked the collapse of talks. Since then, Iran has taken several measures: it attacked the Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, suspended cooperation with the IAEA citing its chief Rafael Grossi’s alleged collaboration with Israel, refused to hand over its 400 kg enriched uranium, and declined to negotiate with the US without security guarantees. These developments hint at a policy change in Iran. The next step could be exiting the NPT. This may serve as a deterrent or a step toward nuclearization by shedding the nuclear fatwa and generating public support. With 400 kg of enriched uranium already relocated and no IAEA supervision in place, Iran appears to be adopting nuclear ambiguity like Israel.
This would allow Iran to continue its activities without inspection and enhance scientist security. By discontinuing cooperation with the international watchdog, Iran aims to sensitize the nuclear issue globally. If these trends persist amid fears of another Middle East conflict, the international community might pressure Israel to open its nuclear program to inspection. Such a move could help restart negotiations and support the call for a nuclear-free Middle East—making regional backing for Israeli transparency inevitable.
Israel’s Attack on Iran: Targets, Support, Devastation, and U.S. Involvement
By: Harmeet Singh, Editor News Watch, Prominent Journalist and Anchor, Expert Middle East Affairs, Islamabad
The Iran-Israel war began on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched a large-scale surprise offensive targeting Iran’s top military leadership and critical infrastructure amid the ongoing Gaza conflict. Key targets included IRGC command centers in Tehran, ballistic missile depots in Isfahan, radar systems in Shiraz, air defense batteries in Mashhad, and underground nuclear facilities near Natanz and Fordow.
These precision strikes aimed to paralyze Iran’s strategic defenses. Israel received surveillance and cyber warfare assistance from the United States and the United Kingdom, while NATO-linked assets allegedly provided satellite coordination for real-time target tracking. Israeli jets and drones launched multiple waves of missiles, overwhelming Iranian air defenses.
Civilian areas near military sites were hit hard, with over 935 civilian casualties including 132 women, 38 children and significant infrastructure damage. Dozens of fuel depots, airfields, communication towers, and missile plants were destroyed, with economic losses exceeding $15 billion. Among the martyred were at least 20 senior Iranian military commander’s martyred Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, Major General Hossein Salami, Commander‑in‑Chief of the IRGC, Major General Gholam Ali Rashid, head of Khatam‑al‑Anbiya Central Headquarters, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of IRGC Aerospace Forces.
In response to Iran’s vow to retaliate, the United States escalated its role. Initially providing intelligence and diplomatic backing, Washington later launched direct precision strikes using B-2 stealth bombers on Iranian nuclear sites.
Assassinations or Targeted Killings under International Law
At least 9 prominent Iranian nuclear scientists have been martyred in targeted assassinations by the Zionist regime, often near their homes, also killing civilians. These attacks were not isolated incidents but a systematic effort to obstruct Iran’s scientific progress. Among the victims were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and university president, and Fereydoon Abbasi, former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, who survived an attempt that killed his colleague Majid Shahriari.
Others included Abdul Hamid Manouchehr, Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, Amir Hossein Faghihi, and several more, all involved in peaceful nuclear research. Under Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 6 of the ICCPR, such killings—especially in civilian zones and against non-combatants—are illegal. These assassinations are acts of terrorism meant to instill fear and sabotage Iran’s scientific capabilities, in blatant violation of international law.
Iran’s Military and Strategic Response
Iran’s military and strategic response during the conflict with Israel was swift, calculated, and unprecedented in scale. Within just 12 hours of Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, Tehran launched a massive retaliatory operation, “True Promise 3,” involving ballistic missiles, advanced drones and hypersonic weapons.
This was not just a symbolic show of force but a well-coordinated assault targeting Israel’s most sensitive military and intelligence infrastructure. Iran’s strategy relied on overwhelming the enemy’s multi-layered defense systems. Key military bases, logistics depots, and intelligence centers in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, and the Negev region were hit, with satellite imagery later confirming significant damage.
Failure or Breach in Israel’s Air Defense System
Razi Tahir, Deputy Editor News Watch, Prominent Researcher and Journalist, Expert Eastern Affairs
This war exposed severe failures in Israel’s multi-layered air defense system, including indigenous platforms such as the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow-3, as well as the U.S.-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. Historically, Israel’s defense network was considered a global standard for countering a variety of aerial threats from short-range rockets to long-range ballistic missiles.
However, during Iran’s large-scale retaliatory operation, “True Promise 3,” this network experienced one of the worst failures in its history. Iran’s advanced missile technology and precision-guided weapons completely overwhelmed Israeli radar and defense systems. Iranian missiles were equipped with radar-evading features and high-speed maneuverability which exploited critical gaps and successfully struck key locations including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, and major military installations. David’s Sling and Arrow-3, designed to intercept medium- to long-range threats at high altitudes, were also effectively bypassed. Satellite images and eyewitness accounts revealed that only 20 to 30 percent of the incoming missiles were intercepted by the system.
Israel’s troubles were compounded by the failure of the American THAAD system, which was deployed as a strategic shield against long-range ballistic threats. THAAD failed to intercept Sejjil and Kheibar Shekan missiles, some of which hit sensitive sites such as the Soroka Center in Beersheba, which was a major blow. Experts attribute these failures to Iran’s use of saturation tactics, launching simultaneous attacks from multiple fronts, including Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.
Iran also deployed electronic warfare techniques to jam Israeli radar and disrupt missile tracking. Waves of decoy drones and high-speed missile barrages severely hampered the response capability of the defense systems. These combined failures not only caused massive destruction but also dealt a serious blow to public confidence in Israeli and American missile defense. The real-world exposure of technological weaknesses under high-intensity warfare scenarios boosted Iran’s standing as a formidable regional power capable of challenging even the most advanced military technologies.
Media Censorship and Damages inside Israel
During the 2025 Iran-Israel war, Israel witnessed one of the most intense episodes of media censorship in its history. In the immediate aftermath of Iranian retaliatory strikes, dozens of international journalists were detained in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other cities. Authorities barred live reporting from key sites, restricted access to bombed zones, and imposed communication blackouts in certain areas. The aim was clear: to limit the spread of images and information that revealed the true scale of damage and civilian panic. In several instances, Western media outlets engaged in self-censorship. A notable case involved a Fox News correspondent who was abruptly cut off while reporting on missile strikes near Israel’s military headquarters. Despite these restrictions, independent investigations and leaks revealed the extent of the destruction.
The Telegraph reported that Israel had concealed details of a large and precise Iranian missile strike that targeted five highly sensitive military installations, including a major airbase, an intelligence command center, and ammunition depots. Satellite imagery confirmed the strikes across northern, central, and southern Israel, contradicting official narratives that downplayed the damage.
Maariv, a prominent Israeli newspaper, later acknowledged that the war had caused severe casualties. Citing the Israeli Ministry of Health, it reported that 3,345 civilians were injured, 23 were critically wounded, and three died in hospitals due to missile impacts. Hospitals in Beersheba, Tel Aviv, and Ashkelon were overwhelmed, with emergency rooms operating beyond capacity. Economically, the toll was devastating.
According to Calcalist, more than 41,550 compensation claims were filed with the Israeli government. Of these, 32,975 were for residential property damage, 4,456 for household items, and 4,119 for vehicles. The financial strain on the state, insurers, and affected families was immense. Security analysts across Israeli media described the situation as a “strategic shock,” highlighting failures in air defense and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure. With thousands of families still displaced and no clear reconstruction plan in place, public criticism of the government’s preparedness and war strategy has intensified. The war, initially portrayed as a show of strength, ultimately exposed deep fractures in Israel’s military resilience and internal stability.
Failure of Regime Change Conspiracy in Iran
By: Mohammad Reza Komeli, Correspondent News Watch Tehran, Iran
One of the gravest miscalculations made by Israeli and American strategists during the 2025 Iran-Israel war was their flawed assumption about the Iranian people. Intelligence assessments in Tel Aviv and Washington wrongly predicted that within three days of launching military strikes on Iran, the country would descend into internal chaos, civil unrest, and public backlash against the Islamic Republic.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu went as far as to publicly call for “regime change” in Iran, a call soon echoed by U.S. President Donald Trump in a provocative tweet. However, what unfolded on the ground was a completely different reality. Instead of dividing, the Iranian population displayed unprecedented unity. Political factions, ethnic minorities, and even dissident voices temporarily set aside their differences, rallying around the leadership of the Supreme Leader, the IRGC, and the national government. Streets once marked by protests turned into symbols of resistance and patriotism, as millions of Iranians volunteered for civil defense, relief operations, and frontline support. Far from weakening the Islamic Republic, the war reinforced its internal strength and legitimacy.
The regime change agenda was not the only failed objective. Another covert strategy involved fueling sectarian tension within Iran and across the Muslim world, hoping to isolate the Shiite-majority nation. Yet, this too collapsed. Sunni-majority nations, religious scholars, and political leaders across the Islamic world recognized the broader implications of the war and refused to be manipulated into sectarian conflict.
From Pakistan to Iraq, and from Lebanon to Turkey, strong voices emerged in support of Iran’s sovereignty and against foreign intervention. Rather than isolating Iran, the war strengthened its ideological foundations, solidified its leadership’s domestic standing, and exposed the hollowness of external narratives about Iranian fragility. The regime change conspiracy not only failed, it backfired, uniting a nation under fire.
Strengthening of Iran’s Regional Standing vs. Weakening of Israeli Deterrence
By: Dr. Syed Qandil Abbas, Professor at School of Politics and IR, Quaid-I-Azam University Islamabad
The 2025 Israel-US aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran marked a watershed moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics, where Iran demonstrated strategic maturity, military resilience, and regional leadership. Far from being destabilized, the Islamic Republic emerged with enhanced deterrent credibility, a reinvigorated network of regional alliances, and increased legitimacy across the Muslim world.
This section adopts an academic lens grounded in Realism, Hybrid Warfare Theory, and Post-Colonial Security Studies, asserting that Iran not only survived but gained substantial political and strategic capital as a result of two nuclear powers attacking a non-nuclear state. Iran’s response to Israel’s so-called preemptive strikes, launched under the pretext of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities was swift, coordinated, and strategically calibrated.
Drawing on realist theory, Iran pursued a rational response to defend its sovereignty and regional interests. Rather than provoking full-scale war, Iran executed proportionate ballistic missile strikes that constrained Israeli operational flexibility and forced it into an uncharacteristic defensive posture.
Iran’s approach was embedded in a Hybrid Warfare strategy that blurred the boundaries between conventional and irregular warfare, integrating cyber tools and strategic messaging. The effectiveness of this approach was evident in Israel’s inability to decisively degrade Iranian command structures or soft-power capabilities. Iran’s precision strikes on Israeli defense installations and economic hubs exposed weaknesses in Israel’s multilayered missile defense and challenged its doctrine of deterrence-by-superiority. The conflict was also a war of narratives.
Through a post-colonial lens, Iran portrayed its actions as legitimate self-defense against an occupying power with a history of aggression and Western-backed impunity. Tehran’s framing resonated across the Arab and Islamic world, where growing dissatisfaction with U.S.-led double standards and Zionist militarism had already eroded support for normalization. Several Persian Gulf states quietly recalibrated their security postures, engaging with Tehran in backchannel diplomacy.
One of the most significant geopolitical consequences was the weakening of the U.S.-sponsored Abraham Accords. In the wake of the war, signatory countries including the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco publicly condemned Israeli military actions and expressed concern over civilian casualties. Widespread public denunciations across the Gulf and North Africa pressured these governments to distance themselves diplomatically from Israel. These developments created concerns for states preparing to join the Accords. The war also highlighted the limits of U.S.-centric security models.
While Israel relied on American military support and systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and THAAD, Iran leveraged indigenous capabilities built under sanctions and isolation. Its self-reliant posture now appears validated, inspiring Global South nations to question U.S.-aligned security architectures. In sum, the 2025 war was not a confrontation Iran barely survived, but a strategic contest it weathered with coherence and impact. Iran emerged emboldened, with its deterrence posture strengthened, alliances intact, and its claim to regional leadership solidified. For the first time in history, two nuclear powers attacked a non-nuclear state and failed to achieve their objectives.
Leave a comment