Unpacking the Iran-Israel escalation: Toward war or controlled chaos?
The rivalry between Iran and Israel has long been a defining issue in Middle Eastern politics, marked by proxy confrontations, rhetorical hostilities and covert intelligence operations. These indirect engagements have shaped the region's dynamics for decades, but recent events signal a dramatic shift. On June 13, 2025, Israeli aircraft launched a series of strikes on Iranian territory, targeting scientific research facilities, military air bases and the private residences of key figures in Iran's nuclear and defense sectors. This campaign resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking officials, including Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Hossein Salami, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Gholam Ali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters. Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC Aerospace Force, was also confirmed dead, along with prominent scientists integral to Iran's nuclear development program.
These events represent a significant escalation in the long-standing conflict, raising critical questions about the future trajectory of this rivalry. The calculated nature of the strikes and their devastating impact highlight a departure from the shadow wars of the past, signaling a new phase where both sides openly demonstrate their military capabilities and resolve. This shift from indirect to direct confrontation underscores the precarious state of regional stability and the potential for further escalation.
Role of West
Israel’s recent military actions against Iran were not impulsive or isolated but part of a calculated strategy with clear indications of Western backing. In the days leading up to the strikes, the United States evacuated diplomatic staff from neighboring countries, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a strongly worded censure against Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former Middle East envoy publicly hinted that “a strike is imminent.” These developments point not only to foreknowledge but to implicit coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv. Despite former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration’s formal denial of authorizing the attack, its support for Israel, through arms transfers, political cover, and vetoes at the United Nations, renders this denial largely performative. U.S. logistical assistance and shared intelligence are widely viewed as instrumental to the operational success of Israeli missions. This posture of “strategic ambiguity” allows Washington to benefit from deterrence without absorbing the full costs of escalation.
In the aftermath of the strikes, Western leaders and U.S. senators have flooded social media with statements affirming Israel’s right to defend itself, even as evidence points to Israel initiating the conflict. This rhetoric underscores the extent to which Western powers have enabled a culture of impunity around Israeli military actions, regardless of their legality or long-term consequences.
Iran’s perspective
For Iran, the June 13 airstrikes represent a multidimensional threat: a blow to its deterrence credibility, a test of internal cohesion and a signal of deepening international isolation. The assassination of Gen. Bagheri and Fereidoun Abbasi, a former head of the Atomic Energy Organization, is not only a tactical loss but a symbolic assault on Iran’s scientific and strategic-military elite. The killings echo earlier high-profile assassinations, including that of IRGC officer Qassem Soleimani and nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and reinforce a pattern whereby Iran’s most capable figures are eliminated in targeted campaigns with little consequence for the perpetrators.
Yet perhaps the most damaging revelation for the Iranian leadership lies in the exposure of internal weaknesses. The Israeli strikes were remarkably precise, suggesting the presence of detailed intelligence and perhaps even local cooperation. Iranian media and analysts have hinted at insider leaks, infiltration of security services, and operational lapses. These raise questions not only about Iran’s external posture but also about the reliability and effectiveness of its internal intelligence infrastructure.
For a regime that prides itself on strategic depth and counterintelligence, such lapses carry enormous reputational costs. Compounding this internal crisis is the broader political and economic context. Iran remains under severe economic sanctions, with inflation, unemployment and social discontent on the rise. Any perception of state incompetence or vulnerability, especially in defending national sovereignty, could ignite public dissatisfaction and elite fragmentation. In this sense, Israel's operation may have been designed not only to degrade Iranian capabilities but to sow seeds of internal instability.
The justification offered by Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Multiple U.S. intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continues to subject its facilities to IAEA inspections. Moreover, Tehran has repeatedly stated its willingness to return to the JCPOA, which placed strict limits on uranium enrichment and provided for continuous monitoring.
Contrast this with Israel, which is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal exceeding 90 warheads, has never signed the NPT and refuses any international inspection. Yet, Israel faces no sanctions, no censure and no diplomatic pressure to comply with non-proliferation norms.
This asymmetry is not merely legalistic; it speaks to a deeper structure of geopolitical privilege. The international system, under the guise of a “rules-based order,” in practice operates through selective enforcement. Legal instruments become tools for containment rather than genuine regulation. This hypocrisy fuels resentment and mistrust, not only in Iran but across the world. Countries observe how international law is wielded against adversaries but ignored for allies. The result is a legitimacy crisis for multilateral institutions and a growing disillusionment with the idea that international norms are universally applicable. If Israel’s nuclear opacity is tolerated while Iran’s civilian program is criminalized, then the entire non-proliferation regime risks being delegitimized.
Militarizing domestic politics
Israel’s motivations are not purely external. Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces unprecedented political pressure. The ongoing genocide in Gaza has drawn international condemnation, weakened his governing coalition and sparked protests within Israel itself. Under these conditions, war with Iran offers multiple political dividends. It shifts public attention away from Gaza, reframes Netanyahu as a wartime leader, and provides justification for postponing elections or suspending democratic processes.
From a military perspective, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to permanently dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. However, they achieve a different objective: provocation. By initiating hostilities, Israel seeks to draw Iran into retaliatory action, thereby creating a justification for prolonged military engagement and potentially dragging the United States deeper into the conflict. Iran’s initial response, which was a limited missile strike on an Israeli air base, was designed to signal deterrence without inviting full-scale war. But as history shows, such calibrated actions can easily spiral out of control, particularly in an environment already saturated with mutual suspicion and proxy entanglements.
Possible trajectories of crisis
As the situation develops, several potential trajectories are emerging from the current escalation. One possibility, though the most catastrophic, would involve the eruption of a full-scale regional war. Such a conflict could span multiple fronts, drawing in Hezbollah from Lebanon, Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. The fallout from this scenario would be enormous: tens of thousands of civilian casualties, widespread destruction of infrastructure, a collapse in global oil supply chains and a prolonged humanitarian crisis across the Middle East. While this remains the most extreme outcome, it is also the least likely, mainly because none of the major actors, including Iran, Israel, the U.S. or the Gulf states, appear willing to embrace an all-out war that would be politically and economically ruinous.
A more possible scenario is a controlled escalation, wherein both sides engage in periodic retaliation through cyberattacks, sabotage operations or limited military strikes without crossing the threshold into full-blown warfare. Iran and Israel have both operated under this model in the past, particularly in Syria and the other sub-regional areas. It allows both governments to project strength and appease domestic hardliners while maintaining enough restraint to avoid triggering international intervention. However, this approach is inherently unstable. The risk of miscalculation is significant, and the presence of non-state actors with independent agendas further complicates de-escalation efforts.
Perhaps the most realistic and worrying trajectory is one in which tensions escalate gradually but consistently, pulling the U.S. further into the conflict. While initially limited to intelligence sharing and logistical support, Washington’s involvement could expand to active military posturing, such as increased naval deployments or defensive missile systems in the Gulf. As history shows, U.S. entanglements in the region often begin in the name of deterrence but evolve into long-term commitments. This path not only risks entrenching the crisis but could also further polarize U.S. domestic politics and strain already fragile relations with global partners.
To sum up, Israel’s June 13 strikes on Iran marked a shift from proxy conflict to direct confrontation. By targeting top Iranian military and nuclear figures, Israel aimed at asserting dominance, distracting from Gaza and provoking a response. Iran, meanwhile, faces both external threats and internal intelligence failures. The tacit backing of the U.S. via arms, intelligence and diplomatic cover reflects a broader pattern of Western complicity and strategic double standards. As tensions rise, the conflict risks evolving into either a managed escalation or deeper U.S. involvement, which raises questions around the fragility of regional stability.
By Mehmet Rakipoğlu for DailySabah
