Iran Rubs Israel the Wrong Way...

Missiles call it a day job... Iran-Israel continue with their long distance relationship

If international relations had a high school yearbook, Israel and Iran would win “Most Likely to Start the World War III.” This conflict is not just about geopolitics, or about religion, land, pride, or even nukes for that matter (although that claim holds so much water). It’s also about history, posturing, mutual suspicion, and yes, an unhealthy amount of strategic ego (Well, at least from one of the side). Both countries are playing a high-stake game of risk, except in real life with real life consequences, and unfortunately, without the dice!

Few rivalries in international politics capture the complexity, volatility, and ideological entrenchment, like the Israel-Iran conflict does. It is not merely disagreement between the two states—it is a slow-burning confrontation which is defined by asymmetry, indirect engagements, and deeply rooted threat perceptions. West Asia witnessed a paradigm shift in the approach followed by both nations, when Israel carried out its “Operation Rising Lion” attacking key nuclear sites, military installations and residential areas in Iran, including targeted assassinations of military personnel and Iranian nuclear scientists. It was reported that the attack was carried out with 300+ munitions on more than 100 targets by using over 200 planes, all at the same time! Iranian top brass including Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces), Hossein Salami (Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), Amir Ali Hajizadeh (Commander-in-Chief of IRGC Aerospace Force) and more than 6 nuclear scientists were killed. Just before, Iran had announced its 4^th missile city and the footage published portrayed 2 people mentioned above, stepping on an Israeli flag! (Sweet Justice, some would say)

Well, for both nations, this conflict is deeply intertwined with national identity and security doctrine. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has had, on many occasions, spewed venom on the Jewish nation by calling for “destruction of the evil, Zionist regime.” Iran’s outlook is mostly rooted in a narrative of resistance. Surrounded by US military bases, sanctioned internationally, Tehran has developed what it calls as “Axis of Resistance”—a network of proxy and allied actors that extends Iranian influence while creating plausible deniability. (I mean, Iran should understand that sponsoring non-state actors is not exactly the same as cheating with someone’s wife, for it to be not known globally). As a result, Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic thinking is guided by the doctrine of Ein Breira, meaning “no choice.” Having experienced repeated wars and surrounded by such hostile forces around, Tel Aviv maintains a qualitative military edge and a policy of pre-emption when red lines are approached.

Talking about proxies, the confrontation has manifested through a network of regional conflicts. Hezbollah is perhaps Iran’s most potent non-state ally, with a vast arsenal of rockets aimed at northern Israel. The Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and the Houthi movement in Yemen attracts a multi-theatre confrontation. Organisations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad extends Tehran’s influence into the Palestinian issue. It is important to note that, while Hamas is ideologically Sunni, its tactical alignment with Iran is a marriage of convenience built on shared hostility towards Israel (Surely, missile notifications must trend faster than brain-rot influencers, in their world). These multiple fronts created a fluid, decentralised conflict by providing flexibility and plausible deniability while forcing Israel to invest heavily in intelligence, missile defence systems, and forward deterrence.

Well, before the air strikes, Israel carried out heavy operations in the cyber and covert space. The 2010 Stuxnet virus reportedly set back Iran’s nuclear program by years. Also, the assassination of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020 and the 2018 Mossad raid that extracted Iran’s nuclear archives from Tehran exemplified a shift toward pre-emptive, high-risk operations designed to expose and disrupt the Iranian activities. While these operations were tactically successful, they have only delayed Iran from acquiring the N-bomb, but may have increased their resilience in doing so. (As always, in the shadows, intents are just as dangerous as miscalculations, if you know what I mean)

Iran’s nuclear program has always remained to be the most sensitive and potentially explosive element in the Israel-Iran conflict. Israel has always perceived a nuclear-capable Iran as an unacceptable threat to its national existence. While Tehran has always maintained that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful (If Iran’s nukes are peaceful, then my ex was just ‘emotionally expressive’). The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) offered a temporary resolution through diplomatic compromise but Israel, however, remained unconvinced, criticising the deal for sunset clauses. USA under Trump administration withdrew in 2018 bringing the issue back to crisis level. Premier of Israel, in his recent statement, has claimed that Iran has enriched enough Uranium to make 9 bombs, and that makes the issue even worse.

Isreal-Iran is not simply a regional matter—it has become a global challenge with implications for nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, and international norms. The escalation between the two countries has direct and tangible consequences for India, too. New Delhi has strong diplomatic ties with both Israel as well as Iran, taking one side may not be in the best interest of India. In its statements about Iran and Israel action, MEA has taken care to criticise neither side, to much disappointment in both capitals. New Delhi sees the region as its “extended neighbourhood” and it has been working with all sides in the turbulent region to push for the connectivity projects with Israel under I2U2 and the proposed IMEEC & the connectivity through Chabahar port and the INSTC corridor to Central Asia, but to add to India’s trouble, both projects are already in jeopardy. India’s economic interests are tied to energy security in West Asia but there exists an inflation of prices, jittery markets, and interest rates going higher and higher. Flights will need to take longer detours as well, this affects air ticket prices and travels this summer, there is also a likelihood that Air India has suspended flights to Tel Aviv. More importantly, India has around 18,000 Indians in Israel and about 5,000 to 10,000 Indians in Iran, posing a risk to the Indian community based in the region. Thus, India’s position that there should be “immediate de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues” & “dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised” is, therefore, crucial to its national interest.

There are two differing schools of thought in India, on the complete West Asia scenario. One maintains that India should continue with the traditional policy. Prof. Girijesh Pant argues that West Asia is not a place to display India’s power, whereas Former Ambassador Ranjit Gupta is of the opinion that India’s passivity is fine in an unpredictable and volatile environment. He further says that “If speech is silver, silence is golden.” On the contrary, the other school of thought suggests that India should play a more proactive role. Dr. S. Jaishankar argues that India’s foreign policy should change in accordance to its changed status, that India should act as a leading power and not just a balancing power. Chinmaya Gharekhan, too, argues that India should leave the passive approach and should raise its “diplomatic profile.” Nicolas Blarel argues in his article “Recalibrating India’s Middle East Policy” that India needs multiple engagements, and should not look at West Asia through the prism of Pakistan.

Despite the rhetoric, neither Iran nor Israel appears eager for a full-scale war. For Iran, such a conflict could be economically and politically catastrophic. For Israel, the costs would be enormous, both militarily and diplomatically. Yet, the risk of miscalculation remains dangerously high. The path forward demands a combination of realism and restraint. Sanctions alone will not change Iranian behaviour if Tehran perceives itself under existential threat, nor will unilateral military action produce lasting results without a political strategy. Engagement must remain on the table, but it cannot be naïve. Likewise, Iran must understand that its regional activities—while rationalised under its security doctrine—pose unacceptable risks to its neighbours and may ultimately provoke the very isolation it seeks to escape. And perhaps most importantly, it requires that the international community resist the temptation to accept instability as the norm. Quiet diplomacy, confidence-building mechanisms, regional dialogue forums, and deconfliction channels must be part of any serious strategy moving forward.

Because while missiles may deter, and sabotage may delay, only diplomacy can prevent.