For decades, Israel and Iran have engaged in a “shadow war”—a quiet, undeclared conflict marked by covert operations, cyberattacks, proxy skirmishes, and strategic assassinations. This indirect warfare has defined the strained relationship between the two nations since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the Iranian government vowed to eliminate Israel and established an “axis of resistance” in the Middle East.
However, recent events suggest this proxy-based strategy is evolving into a direct confrontation, with potentially severe consequences for the entire region. Israel’s latest airstrike on Iranian military targets marks a dangerous shift, bringing a silent struggle into a far more explicit and violent phase, one with no clear path to resolution.
On Saturday, October 7, Israel conducted an unprecedented three-wave air assault on key Iranian military positions in and around Tehran. The attack, a reaction to Iran’s missile barrage earlier this month, marks one of the most visible escalations in the decades-long hostility between the two nations. While these hostilities still fall short of a full-scale war, their magnitude signals the crossing of a significant threshold. Israel’s recent retaliatory strike and Iran’s preceding offensive action underscore a shift from a shadow war—fought indirectly through allies and covert operations—to a confrontational, visible conflict between the two states. It has normalized direct strikes that were once considered too dangerous to risk.
Iran’s “axis of resistance” includes Shia militias such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Sunni Islamist group Hamas. Through this network, Iran has aimed to encircle Israel with adversarial forces, which Israeli leaders have long considered an existential threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration views these alliances, along with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as red lines. For Netanyahu, the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, reportedly backed by Iran, underscores the dangers of a hostile encirclement strategy, calling for decisive action.
This escalation follows several key provocations in 2024. In April, Israeli jets bombed Iran’s diplomatic consulate in Damascus, killing two Iranian generals whom Israel accused of orchestrating attacks on its territory. In retaliation, Iran launched its first direct military strike on Israeli soil, breaking the taboo against open military conflict and signaling a potential end to the status quo of indirect warfare. After a summer lull, tensions reignited in the form of high-profile Israeli assassinations of Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, and Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, each occurring in territory believed to be secure under Iranian protection.
These assassinations not only enraged Tehran but also led to a second direct missile strike on Israel by Iran on October 1, leading Israel to respond with its most forceful attack to date. This series of events has propelled the two nations further along a dangerous path, as each action appears to erode the unspoken limits of engagement they previously observed.
In the wake of Israel’s latest airstrikes, the United States and its allies, including the United Kingdom, urged both Israel and Iran to de-escalate. President Joe Biden, mindful of the rising hostilities and the volatile regional implications, privately appealed to Prime Minister Netanyahu to refrain from escalating the situation further. His administration dispatched Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Israel last week to reinforce the U.S. position against a region-wide escalation.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed the call for restraint. “I am clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian aggression,” Starmer said during the Commonwealth summit in Samoa. “We need to avoid further regional escalation, and I urge all sides to show restraint. Iran should not respond.”
With the U.S. presidential election just two weeks away, President Biden is under increased pressure to demonstrate effective crisis management. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, has publicly criticized Biden’s handling of the Middle East, accusing his administration of failing to prevent the current crisis from spiraling. The Biden administration, determined to stabilize the region ahead of the election, has been keen to emphasize that no U.S. forces were involved in Israel’s latest operations.
Iran’s initial reaction suggests an intent to avoid immediate retaliation. Early reports indicate that Tehran may be inclined to downplay the strike, though voices among Iran’s political hardliners have called for a strong response. Should Tehran decide to retaliate, the potential for conflict to expand across national borders grows exponentially. Iran’s powerful regional allies, particularly Hezbollah, have a vast arsenal of rockets aimed at Israel, and an all-out conflict would likely draw them into the fray, destabilizing Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.
Military analysts warn that further escalation could also involve strikes on nuclear and energy facilities, a move that might provoke pre-emptive strikes by Israel on Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran’s air defense systems, damaged in the recent attacks, may be less able to prevent future Israeli strikes, thus increasing Israel’s leverage and Tehran’s vulnerability. As of now, Biden’s diplomacy appears to have tempered Netanyahu’s most hawkish advisers, who argued for a comprehensive strike on Iran’s critical infrastructure. However, analysts caution that such restraint may be short-lived, especially if Iran opts for retaliation or further missile launches.
While Israel and Iran engage in a war of attrition, the crisis in Gaza continues to worsen, largely eclipsed by the headline-grabbing military exchanges. The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel—widely viewed as a strategic misstep by Hamas but devastating in its impact—has led to intensified Israeli operations in Gaza, leading to significant civilian casualties and worsening humanitarian conditions. The death toll in Gaza has risen sharply, with many international humanitarian organizations expressing alarm over the deteriorating situation. Yet, the crisis remains overshadowed by Israel’s high-profile conflict with Iran.
Secretary Blinken’s recent efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and secure a hostage release in Gaza have thus far yielded little progress. The conflict has polarized international opinion, with many countries struggling to balance their alliances with Israel against calls for humanitarian intervention in Gaza. Diplomatic sources suggest that the inability to resolve the Gaza crisis continues to exacerbate tensions across the Middle East, fueling resentment and raising the specter of wider conflict in the region.
While Israel and Iran appear to be engaging in calibrated strikes designed to signal power without inciting full-scale war, the risk of miscalculation remains high. Israel’s ability to carry out surgical airstrikes with minimal civilian impact has so far contained the conflict within military confines. However, military experts warn that repeated strikes could provoke a more forceful Iranian response, potentially drawing the entire region into an escalating conflict that would be challenging to control or reverse.
If Iran were to launch a retaliatory strike targeting Israeli infrastructure, the situation could escalate rapidly, potentially drawing in U.S. forces and other regional players. A broader confrontation could spill over into Lebanon and Syria, where Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed militias maintain a formidable presence. Should the conflict reach this stage, analysts predict that civilian populations across the Middle East would face severe consequences, exacerbating regional instability and fueling refugee crises across multiple borders.
