Israel-Iran Attacks: A Controversial Assessment of a Multifaceted Escalation

Introduction: A New Dimension of Tension and a Controversial Assessment Approach

The Middle East has long been at the center of complex geopolitical tensions. One of the most critical and dynamic axes of these tensions is the relationship between Israel and Iran. Traditionally, the conflict between the two countries has been described as a "shadow war," involving proxy conflicts, cyberattacks, assassinations, and sabotage operations, rather than direct military attacks. This situation reflected both sides' tendency to avoid direct attacks on each other's territory, instead conducting regional influence struggles through third parties or covert operations. During this period, the conflict was generally limited to attacks on commercial ships in third countries' territories or at sea.

However, events, particularly in 2024 and 2025, indicate that this "shadow" curtain has lifted, and the conflict has evolved into a new and dangerous phase with direct military attacks. The attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus and Iran's retaliatory direct missile and drone attacks on Israel are the most prominent examples of this transformation. These events show that both countries have redefined the rules of engagement and are willing to risk direct retaliation. This transition has had serious consequences for regional stability, increased the risk of conflict escalation, and drawn international condemnation. Regional actors have been forced to re-evaluate their positions in the face of this new situation.

The primary purpose of this assessment is not merely to present a chronological account of the recent escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict, but also to critically examine the strategic motivations of the actors, the conflicting interests behind international reactions, and the regional and global repercussions of the conflict. This approach will question widely accepted assumptions and explore possible hidden agendas and unexpected outcomes. For example, it will focus on issues such as the political and strategic calculations behind Israel's perception of an "existential threat" or Iran's pursuit of regional influence beyond its "deterrence" rhetoric. This report will emphasize that the conflict is not only a military dimension but also has deep political, economic, and social layers.

The evolution of the conflict from a "shadow war" to direct military attacks in 2024-2025 indicates that traditional efforts to control escalation have failed. This could mean that both sides have redefined their "red lines" or miscalculated the other side's reaction. Particularly, incidents like Israel's attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, which violated diplomatic immunity, pushed Iran to direct retaliation, effectively eliminating the implicit rules of the shadow war. This suggests that the conflict has become more unpredictable, as parties may feel less constrained. This development highlights the need for regional actors and international mediators to re-evaluate their future crisis management strategies. It is now understood that there are no "established rules" for escalation, and a direct and devastating conflict could erupt at any moment. This poses a serious threat to regional security architecture.

Furthermore, Israel's perception of Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" and its subsequent attacks, from an external perspective, appear to be rational security concerns. However, it should also be questioned whether this rhetoric is being used as a tool to alleviate Israel's internal political crisis (especially that of the Netanyahu government) and the international pressure arising from the war in Gaza. Attacks on Iran might aim to silence internal opposition and divert international attention away from Gaza, thereby strengthening the government's position and uniting public opinion behind it. This implies that the conflict is fueled not only by foreign policy objectives but also by internal political calculations. This highlights that the conflict is not merely a geopolitical chess game but also a significant part of both countries' internal political dynamics and leadership struggles. This means that future escalations or tensions could be triggered not only by external threat perceptions but also by internal calculations, making diplomatic solutions more complex.

Chronology of the Conflict and Key Events (2020-2025): An Anatomy of Escalation

The tension between Israel and Iran has significantly escalated in recent years, evolving from traditional "shadow war" tactics to direct military confrontations. This transformation has been shaped by a series of critical events.

Intensification of Covert Warfare: Strategic Implications of Assassinations, Cyberattacks, and Naval Clashes

The early 2020s marked a period when the covert war between the two countries became increasingly intense and audacious. In November 2020, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of the architects of Iran's nuclear program, was assassinated near Tehran with a remote-controlled weapon. Iran directly blamed Israel for the incident, while Israeli media and Western intelligence sources implied that the operation was carried out by Mossad. This assassination was recorded as one of the most striking examples of Israel's long-standing campaign of sabotage and assassination aimed at slowing Iran's nuclear capacity development efforts. Such attacks aimed not only to inflict physical damage on Iran's nuclear infrastructure but also to impede the program's progress by targeting its scientific personnel.

The year 2021 saw a noticeable increase in naval clashes between the two countries. An Israeli commercial ship was bombed off the coast of Oman, and shortly after, Iran announced that its own cargo ship had been targeted by Israel. A mine attack on an Iranian naval vessel in the Red Sea was also alleged to be Israeli-originated. These incidents revealed a new form of conflict where the distinction between civilian vessels and military assets blurred. This naval tension posed a potential threat to global energy supply lines, increasing international shipping insurance costs and raising concerns about the security of critical maritime passages like the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

In May 2022, Colonel Sayyad Khodaei, a commander of an assassination and kidnapping unit affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, was killed by motorcycle assailants in Tehran. Israel informed the United States after the attack that they had carried out this operation. In the same month, two Iranian scientists – an aerospace engineer and a geologist – died from food poisoning, and Iran claimed Israel was behind these deaths. These events exposed the extent of Israeli intelligence activities within Iran and Iran's counter-intelligence vulnerabilities. Iran further escalated tensions by threatening retaliation for such attacks.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas's attack on Israel triggered a major war in Gaza. Although Hamas is known to receive support from Iran, Tehran denied direct involvement. However, other Iran-backed actors like Hezbollah and the Houthis also became involved in the conflict. The Israeli public and government argued that Iran's "strategic guidance" was behind these attacks. By the end of the year, Israel conducted an airstrike on an Iranian military target in Syria, killing a high-ranking Iranian commander. This period set the stage for Israel to increase its operations against the "axis of resistance."

Direct Conflict Phase: Impact of Embassy Attack, Missile, and Drone Retaliations on Regional Balance

The year 2024 marked a significant turning point in the Israel-Iran conflict. On April 1, 2024, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy complex in Damascus; this attack killed 3 high-ranking Iranian commanders and 4 Revolutionary Guard officers. This incident triggered Iran's first direct attack on Israel since 1979. On April 13, 2024, Iran launched over 300 missiles and drones at Israel in an operation code-named "True Promise II." Israel and a US-led international coalition neutralized most of the missiles. This event fundamentally changed the nature of the conflict, marking the most prominent sign of a transition from shadow warfare to open military confrontation.

This direct conflict phase continued with a second major attack in October 2024. On October 1, 2024, Iran launched approximately 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, citing the assassination of the Hezbollah leader and Israel's occupation of Lebanon as justifications, marking its second direct attack. The primary reasons for these attacks were Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 31 and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in September. Iran presented this attack as a "response to Israel's assassinations of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Revolutionary Guard members." In retaliation, on October 26, 2024, Israel openly attacked Iran for the first time, targeting air defense systems and facilities associated with its missile program. This initiated a cycle of mutual direct attacks.

Targeted Leaders and Facilities: Long-Term Consequences of Haniyeh, Nasrallah Assassinations, and Attacks on Nuclear Facilities

Israel's targeted attacks expanded to include the leadership of Iran's proxy forces. In July 2024, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran, and Israel claimed responsibility for the assassination. This event was a significant blow that could affect the leadership vacuum and strategic coordination within Iran's "axis of resistance." Haniyeh's assassination was seen as an extension of Israel's policy of targeting Hamas leaders.

In September 2024, Israel killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike in Beirut. This assassination aimed to weaken Iran's regional influence and deterrence capabilities by targeting the leader of its most powerful proxy force in the region. This situation was described by some commentators as the "funeral of the axis of resistance."

In June 2025, large-scale Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities aimed to target Iran's nuclear program and potentially escalate tensions further. These attacks directly aimed to affect Iran's uranium enrichment capacity and its potential to acquire nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that these attacks set Iran's nuclear program back "a very, very long time."

Israel's assassinations of Iranian scientists and military leaders (Fakhrizadeh, Khodaei, Haniyeh, Nasrallah) aim to slow Iran's nuclear program and weaken its proxy forces. However, such actions could paradoxically accelerate Iran's nuclear program and lead to the appointment of new, potentially more radical leaders, creating an unintended effect. Assassinations might push Iran into "survival" mode and prompt it to decide to play its nuclear card. While providing short-term weakening, this could lead to a more dangerous and unpredictable Iran in the long run, as new leadership might adopt a less compromising stance. This raises questions about the long-term strategic consequences of Israel's "surgical" operations. Immediate gains could trigger a larger, uncontrolled escalation and further destabilize the regional security balance.

The attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus was a clear violation of diplomatic immunity and international law. This incident eliminated the implicit rules of "shadow war" (avoiding direct attacks on state territory or diplomatic missions). Iran's direct retaliation indicates that there is no longer a "gray area" and the conflict has become fully open. This fundamentally shakes the regional security architecture, potentially increasing the legitimacy of similar attacks and retaliations, and creating a new "security dilemma" among regional actors. This situation deepens the "security dilemma" among regional actors and increases the risk of further conflict spread. Such violations of international law could normalize similar actions in future conflicts and contribute to the erosion of international norms.

Strategic Objectives and Conflicting Motivations of Actors: Who Wants What?

The conflict between Israel and Iran demonstrates that both sides have complex strategic objectives driven by deep-seated security concerns, regional influence aspirations, and internal political dynamics. These objectives often involve more than what is explicitly stated and influence the course of the conflict.

Israel's Security Paradigm: Controversial Approaches to the Nuclear Program Threat and Weakening Proxy Forces

Israel views Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat." This perception legitimizes Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and assassinations of nuclear scientists. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that these attacks set Iran's nuclear program back "a very, very long time," which can be interpreted as part of Israel's preemptive strike strategy. This rhetoric is used as a powerful rhetorical tool to garner international support and legitimize its attacks. However, it might also mask Israel's own pursuit of regional hegemony and its desire to curb Iran's influence in the region. This strategy provides Israel with a broad operational space while encouraging the international community to take harsher measures against Iran. This raises the debate about whether Israel's military actions, while seeking international legitimacy, might have broader regional power balance shifts as their true objectives. This situation demonstrates how security rhetoric can diverge from actual strategic goals and be used as a manipulative tool in international relations. This reveals that the conflict is shaped not only by threat perceptions but also by struggles for power and influence.

Another strategic objective for Israel is to weaken Iran's proxy forces, known as the "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis). To this end, assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders have been carried out, and Iran's regional influence has been targeted through proxy wars. Israel aims to enhance its border security by reducing the capabilities of these proxy forces. Netanyahu's refusal to rule out the possibility of overthrowing the Iranian regime, and even his call for Iranians to revolt against their leaders, has fueled discussions that Israel might be targeting not only the nuclear program but also Iran's current political structure. This indicates that the conflict is not limited to military objectives but also has an ideological and political dimension.

Iran's Axis of Resistance and Pursuit of Deterrence: Limits of Retaliation Capacity and Regional Influence

Iran aims to establish "deterrence" against Israeli attacks and exercise its right to "legitimate self-defense." Direct missile and drone attacks on Israel have been presented as part of this deterrence strategy. Iran sought to demonstrate through these attacks that it could also create security vulnerabilities within Israel's own territory.

Iran's regional influence is maintained through proxy forces such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. This "axis of resistance" aims to deter attacks on Iran's own territory by constantly threatening Israeli and US interests in the region. This forms the basis of Iran's asymmetric warfare capability. However, the severe damage inflicted by Israel on proxy forces and the assassinations of their leaders have called into question Iran's control and effectiveness over this axis. This suggests that Iran's regional strategy is at a turning point and that it might take more unpredictable or radical steps in the future. The weakening of proxy forces could increase the risk of direct conflict and lead to unexpected shifts in the regional balance of power. The destruction of Iran's own air defense systems (S-300s) in Israeli attacks also revealed vulnerabilities in its military capabilities. These vulnerabilities might push Iran towards riskier strategies.

Although Iran states it is not seeking nuclear weapons, there are scenarios where it might decide to develop an "atomic bomb" if Israeli attacks push it into "survival" mode and it increases its uranium enrichment rates. This increases Iran's potential to use its nuclear program as a deterrence tool.

Regime Change and the Possibility of Nuclear Armament: Tension Between Overt and Covert Goals and Potential Consequences

Israel's attacks on nuclear facilities and Netanyahu's hints at regime change indicate that the conflict goes beyond merely halting the nuclear program. This can be interpreted as part of a broader strategy targeting Iran's internal stability and political structure; Israel might believe that a change in the current Iranian regime would contribute more to its own security. Iran, on the other hand, faces the risk of resorting to nuclear armament as a last resort to counter these attacks and ensure its survival. This could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and escalate regional security to an even more dangerous level, as other countries might also pursue nuclear weapons for their own security.

The US role in this process is also contradictory: while supporting Israel, it does not want to be drawn into a direct war. The Trump administration's veto of a plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader demonstrates the US's effort to control escalation, but this effort contains internal tensions.

Israel's overt objectives in the conflict include halting Iran's nuclear program, weakening proxy forces, and ensuring its own security. However, covert or potential objectives may also include establishing regional hegemony, changing the Iranian regime, achieving internal political consolidation, and alleviating pressure in Gaza.

Iran's overt objectives, on the other hand, are to establish deterrence against Israeli attacks, exercise its right to self-defense, and state that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. Covert or potential objectives may include maintaining or increasing its regional influence, considering nuclear armament as a last resort, preserving internal political stability, and increasing its diplomatic leverage with the US.

Israel's presentation of Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" serves as a powerful rhetorical tool to garner international support and legitimize its attacks. However, this might also mask Israel's own pursuit of regional hegemony and its desire to curb Iran's influence in the region. This rhetoric provides Israel with a broad operational space while encouraging the international community to take harsher measures against Iran. This strategy, while seeking international legitimacy for Israel's military actions, raises the debate about whether its true objectives might be a broader shift in the regional power balance. This situation demonstrates how security rhetoric can diverge from actual strategic goals and be used as a manipulative tool in international relations. This reveals that the conflict is shaped not only by threat perceptions but also by struggles for power and influence.

Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) long formed the basis of its regional deterrence. However, Israel's successful assassinations of leaders within this axis (Haniyeh, Nasrallah) and the severe damage inflicted on proxy forces' military capabilities have exposed the fragility of this strategy. This situation might push Iran towards either more direct and conventional deterrence (missile attacks) or riskier alternatives like nuclear armament. The weakening of proxy forces could lower Iran's threshold for direct conflict. This suggests that Iran's regional strategy is at a turning point and that it might take more unpredictable or radical steps in the future. The weakening of proxy forces could increase the risk of direct conflict and lead to unexpected shifts in the regional balance of power.

International Community's Reactions and Diplomatic Deadlocks: Ineffectiveness or Conflict of Interest?

The escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict has drawn widespread reactions from the international community. However, the nature and effectiveness of these reactions are debatable due to the complex interplay of global power balances and regional interests.

Calls from the UN and International Organizations: Limited Impact of Condemnations and Calls for Restraint

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called on Israel and Iran to cease their attacks and turn to diplomacy. The UN Security Council condemned Israel's attacks on Iran, stating that these attacks violated international law. Iran emphasized that the attack was a violation of international law and the UN Charter, urging the Security Council to hold Israel accountable. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also "strongly condemned" Israel's attacks and called on the international community to "assume its responsibilities."

However, these condemnations and calls for restraint have had a limited effect on halting the escalation on the ground. Conflicts have continued, and casualties have increased. This situation highlights the lack of enforcement power and political will of international organizations. This limitation in the international community's response paves the way for the conflict to deepen further. Particularly, the fact that some countries condemn Israel's actions while others remain silent or even support them reinforces the perception of double standards in the application of international law. This contributes to the erosion of international law and norms, potentially normalizing similar violations in future conflicts.

Positions of Major Powers: Complex, Sometimes Contradictory Roles and Regional Interests of the US, Russia, China, and the EU

The positions of major powers in the Israel-Iran conflict exhibit a complex and sometimes contradictory nature, driven by their own geopolitical and economic interests.

United States: Although the US stated it had "nothing to do" with Israel's attacks, it actively supported Israel and threatened that if Iran targeted US interests, it would "respond with unprecedented force." At the same time, US President Trump attempted to control escalation by vetoing a plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader. The US's "America First" policy has led to unconditional support for Israel causing debates even within Trump's own base, demonstrating the reflection of US internal political dynamics on its foreign policy. This contradictory situation reveals that the US, while supporting its ally, does not want to be drawn into a large-scale war in the Middle East.

Russia: Russia has strong ties with both Israel and Iran. Russian President Putin met with both leaders, offering to help de-escalate the tension. The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned Israel's attacks as "categorically unacceptable" and warned that "all consequences of this provocation will fall on the Israeli leadership." Russia emphasized the importance of resolving the situation around Iran's nuclear program through political and diplomatic means and offered mediation. It has also been noted that Russia could benefit economically from this conflict, such as through increased energy prices, indicating that Russia's position is shaped by geopolitical and economic interests. Russia's dual approach reflects its effort to increase its influence in the region and potentially divert Western attention from Ukraine.

China: China supported the request for an emergency Security Council meeting regarding Israel's attacks on Iran and joined calls for de-escalation. China's reaction reflects its concerns about the potential impact of regional instability on global trade and energy security. China generally tries to maintain a neutral stance in regional conflicts but tends to protect its own energy and trade interests. This indicates that China prioritizes global stability and its economic interests.

European Union (EU): EU foreign ministers held an emergency meeting to discuss the Israel-Iran conflict. The EU expressed serious concern about the risk of a spiral of violence in the Middle East and reiterated its concern about Iran's escalating nuclear trajectory. The EU stated that ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons through diplomatic means remains a key security priority. The EU urged all parties to abide by international law, show restraint, and avoid targeting civilians, but its concrete sanctioning or intervention capabilities are limited. The EU's position reflects its concerns about the impact of regional instability on Europe, such as potential refugee flows and energy security.

Regional Actors' Search for Balance: Positions and Interactions of Turkey, Gulf States, and Others in the Conflict

Regional actors are attempting to pursue a delicate balancing act in the face of the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.

Turkey: Turkey is described as being "at a crossroads between power and prudence" in the Israel-Iran conflict. Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz condemned Israel's attacks on Iran as "illegal and provocative actions" and criticized the Netanyahu administration's aggression aimed at destabilizing the region. Turkey called on international institutions and all relevant countries to take a stronger stance. It is stated that Turkey is the only actor in the region that can act as a balancing force against Israel and can no longer oscillate between competition/conflict and rapprochement/cooperation. Turkey's stance reflects both its emphasis on regional stability and its pursuit of strengthening its geopolitical position.

Gulf States: Gulf states have openly opposed Israel's attacks on Iran. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are particularly concerned about the risk of the conflict spilling over into their territories. Israel's use of Saudi Arabian airspace in the early months of 2025 demonstrated the fragility of the Saudi-Iran normalization process and called Riyadh's position into question. Although Saudi officials did not make an official statement, intelligence sources confirmed that the airspace was temporarily opened. This situation, while solidifying Iran's isolation in the region, has complicated the position of the Gulf states. Countries like Oman and Qatar continue mediation efforts with the US to pressure Israel to halt its military operations.

Lebanon: Lebanese leaders have explicitly stated that their country must remain outside the Israel-Iran conflict, as any involvement would be detrimental to the small nation engulfed in an economic crisis. These statements are interpreted as a message to the militant Hezbollah group in Lebanon, an ally of both Iran and Hamas. Hezbollah launched its own attacks on Israel after the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and suffered significant losses. Lebanon's stance can be seen as an effort to limit the regional spread of the conflict.

The double standards and ineffectiveness in the international community's response are closely linked to the political and economic dimensions of the conflict. Veto powers in the Security Council allow major powers to act in accordance with their own interests, preventing a unified stance. For example, the unconditional support given by the US to Israel makes it difficult to take concrete steps against Israel's actions, despite Iran's claims of international law violations. This leads to the selective application of international law and weakens the credibility of international organizations. This clearly reveals the structural weaknesses of the international system in resolving current crises.

The fragile balancing acts of regional actors and the risk of conflict escalation highlight the complex alliance structure of the Middle East. Events such as the Gulf states' decision to open their airspace to Israel demonstrate how sensitive regional normalization processes are and how the conflict can open new fronts at any moment. Such decisions, while increasing Iran's isolation in the region, also reflect the difficult choices faced by Gulf states between their own security and regional balance. This means that regional instability is deepening not only militarily but also diplomatically and politically. Regional actors are sometimes forced to take contradictory steps to ensure their own security, which further destabilizes the overall regional balance.

Regional and Global Impacts of the Conflict: Domino Effect and Future Scenarios

The escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict affects not only the tension between the two countries but also the overall stability of the Middle East and the global system. The domino effect created by this conflict at regional and global levels is felt across a wide range, from energy markets to international trade, from security architecture to political balances.

Impacts on Energy Markets and Global Economy: Oil Prices, Trade Routes, and Inflationary Pressures

Following Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear and military targets, oil prices rose rapidly. Immediately after the initial attacks, Brent crude oil prices jumped by 7% to reach $74.23. Although Iran is one of the world's major oil producers, sanctions imposed by Western countries limit its sales. However, if the conflict expands, a slowdown or halt in Iran's oil flow could increase global oil and gasoline prices.

Analysts particularly point to potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. A significant portion of the world's oil is transported by ships through this narrow passage. Iran's previous threats to close the strait in case of an attack pose a major risk to global energy security. Such a closure could lead to a significant increase in oil prices and a severe shock to the global economy. The fact that the global economic shock is a direct result of the regional conflict highlights the current fragility of the world economy. The increase in oil prices could raise production costs, thereby increasing global inflationary pressures and reflecting on consumer prices. This could lead central banks to face pressure to raise interest rates and slow down economic growth. This demonstrates that the conflict has devastating effects not only militarily but also on macroeconomic stability.

In addition to rising oil prices, the conflict also affects global supply chains and maritime transport. Cargo was already being rerouted around the Red Sea due to Houthi attacks on ships in Yemen. The expansion of the conflict in the Middle East could further increase shipping costs and have a negative impact on global trade. Airspace closures and flight cancellations also negatively affect the tourism and logistics sectors.

Transformation of Regional Stability and Security Architecture: Consequences of Transition from Proxy Wars to Direct Conflict

The Israel-Iran conflict is fundamentally transforming the security architecture in the Middle East. The transition from shadow warfare to direct conflict has turned into an all-out confrontation threatening regional stability. This indicates that the Middle East is still a "hard power theater" and that the idea of a gradual American and European withdrawal from security should be questioned. The notion that an American military presence in the region is necessary for deterrence and defense is gaining strength.

The conflict has also increased concerns about air and missile defense. The proliferation of long-range strike technologies, especially drone swarms, has placed the exposure of civilian populations at the center of defense debates. NATO's existing missile defense capabilities have become critical for southern European regions and American forces within the range of Iranian ballistic missiles.

The potential for a power vacuum in Iran to lead to regional chaos is one of the most dangerous scenarios of the conflict. Although Netanyahu's hidden objective is thought to be the complete overthrow of the Iranian regime, the uncertainty of the aftermath causes great concern. Similar to the Iraq and Libya scenarios, a power vacuum in Iran could plunge the region into an uncontrollable civil war and bring unforeseen catastrophes. This could lead to consequences such as refugee flows, border security issues, and the rise of non-state actors. This situation indicates that regional instability has the potential to turn into not only a military but also a socio-political disaster.

Possible Future Scenarios: Analysis of Escalation, Containment, and Regime Change Scenarios

The future of the Israel-Iran conflict holds many uncertainties, and different scenarios are predicted:

1. Continued Escalation and Expansion: In this scenario, mutual attacks continue, and the conflict could escalate into a regional war with direct US intervention or the involvement of Gulf states. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz or playing its nuclear card could be one of the most devastating outcomes of this scenario. Particularly, Iran's acceleration of its nuclear program and increase in 60% enriched uranium stockpiles could make the decision to acquire nuclear weapons imminent.

2. Containment Efforts: The international community, especially the US, may continue efforts to contain the conflict from further escalation. Actions like the Trump administration's veto of a plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader demonstrate this desire. Diplomatic negotiations and mediation efforts could be employed to reduce tensions. However, Israel's continued commitment to attacks and Iran's retaliation against civilian targets reduce the likelihood of a negotiated solution.

3. Regime Change and Consequences: The scenario of regime change in Iran, seen as one of Israel's covert objectives, involves great uncertainties. Netanyahu's call for Iranians to revolt against their leaders is an indication of this objective. However, a power vacuum in Iran, as seen in Iraq and Libya, could lead to an uncontrollable civil war and regional chaos. This scenario could have serious consequences for neighboring countries like Turkey, such as refugee flows and border security issues.

Conclusion: The Complexity of the Conflict and the Future of the Middle East

The tension between Israel and Iran has evolved from a long-standing "shadow war" into direct and devastating military confrontations in 2024-2025. This transformation has been marked by events such as the attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus and Iran's retaliatory missile/drone strikes on Israel. This new phase of the conflict indicates a period where both sides have redefined their "red lines" and are willing to risk direct retaliation. This means that escalation is no longer "controlled" and has become unpredictable.

The dynamics of the conflict are shaped by Israel's perception of Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" and its efforts to weaken Iran's regional proxy forces (the axis of resistance). However, this "existential threat" rhetoric may also serve as a tool to alleviate Israel's internal political crisis and the international pressure arising from the war in Gaza. On the other hand, Iran aims to establish deterrence against Israeli attacks and exercise its right to "legitimate self-defense." However, the assassinations of leaders of its proxy forces and the severe damage inflicted on their military capabilities have revealed the fragility of Iran's "axis of resistance" strategy. This situation might push Iran towards riskier alternatives such as more direct conflict or nuclear armament.

The international community's response to this conflict has remained limited despite calls for restraint from the UN and other organizations. The positions of major powers (US, Russia, China, EU) exhibit a complex and sometimes contradictory nature, driven by their own geopolitical and economic interests. This situation reinforces the perception of double standards in the application of international law and questions the effectiveness of international organizations. Regional actors, meanwhile, are pursuing fragile balancing acts in the face of the risk of conflict escalation and are facing difficult choices to ensure their own security.

The regional and global impacts of the conflict are deepening. Oil prices have risen in energy markets, and the security of critical trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz has been threatened. This situation has the potential to increase global inflationary pressures and create a severe shock to the world economy. The regional security architecture is fundamentally transforming, with the transition from proxy wars to direct conflict pushing the Middle East towards the risk of an all-out confrontation. Future scenarios include continued escalation, containment efforts, and even a potential regime change in Iran and the chaos it would bring. Particularly, a power vacuum in Iran could lead to regional chaos and large-scale humanitarian crises.

In conclusion, the Israel-Iran conflict is not merely a dispute between two states but a multifaceted crisis that profoundly affects regional and global power balances, the validity of international law, and energy security. The current situation holds the potential for further escalation and clearly demonstrates the need for the international community to pursue a more consistent, determined, and interest-independent diplomatic solution. Otherwise, instability in the Middle East will continue to affect the entire global system with unpredictable and devastating consequences.