Dr. Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “The events of June 2025 are not just a bilateral conflict; they are a fundamental restructuring of Middle Eastern power dynamics that will affect international security architecture for decades to come.”
The start of direct hostilities between Israel and Iran in June 2025 was a turning point in Middle Eastern geopolitics, changing decades of proxy warfare into open conflict. As someone who has seen many regional conflicts play out through diplomatic channels, I think this is the biggest change in regional power dynamics since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
The conflict has effects that go far beyond the people who are directly involved. It calls into question established diplomatic frameworks and makes us rethink how we keep the region safe. The quick change from cold war to hot war between these regional powers has had effects that diplomatic missions all over the world are still trying to figure out and deal with.
Understanding the Strategic Reasoning Behind Direct Confrontation
The war between Israel and Iran is not an impulsive military adventure; it is a planned escalation. After watching similar tensions grow in the region over years of diplomatic engagement, the pattern that started in June 2025 suggests that both sides reached a strategic inflection point where keeping things the same became more expensive than fighting directly.
On June 13, Israel launched preemptive strikes against a carefully chosen set of Iranian assets, including the Natanz nuclear facility, the Arak heavy water reactor, and the Parchin military complex. This targeting strategy shows that there is advanced intelligence coordination and strategic planning going on that goes beyond just military goals. The operation, called “Rising Lion,” is a clear nod to pre-revolutionary Iranian symbols. It shows that Israel knows that military action alone can’t achieve long-term strategic goals.
The way Iran has responded has also been planned. Instead of trying to escalate things as much as possible, Tehran’s response was to show that they could do it while keeping their options open about how much more they would escalate things. The missiles and munitions that were left behind and hit Israeli targets, including Tel Aviv multiple times, served two purposes: they showed Iran’s determination and tested Israel’s defences.
Failure in Diplomacy and the End of Deterrence
The start of direct hostilities is a major failure of the deterrence system that has kept the Middle East safe for decades. Over the past few years, many diplomatic efforts have tried to deal with the underlying tensions that are causing this conflict, but in the end, these efforts were not enough to stop it from getting worse.
The failure of diplomatic engagement shows that there are bigger problems in today’s international relations. When dealing with the complicated mix of nuclear proliferation, regional hegemony, and domestic political pressures that define the Israel-Iran relationship, traditional diplomatic tools like economic sanctions, multilateral negotiations, and regional security arrangements have not worked.
European diplomats, especially those from the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK), tried to keep lines of communication open even as tensions rose. But these efforts ran into problems because both the Israeli and Iranian leaders saw their strategic relationship as a zero-sum game. In the end, both sides thought that military action was more likely to work than continuing diplomatic talks because they couldn’t come up with any good ways to build trust.
Nuclear Dimensions and Controlling Escalation
The nuclear aspect of the Israel-Iran conflict makes it much harder to figure out how to keep the region safe. Iran’s nuclear programme hasn’t yet made weapons-grade material, according to international monitoring. However, it has reached a point where it could theoretically be turned into weapons in a matter of months instead of years.
Strategic analysts say that this nuclear timeline makes a “use it or lose it” situation for both sides. Israel may have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran if they wait too long to act, and Iran knows that its nuclear infrastructure is still open to preemptive attacks until it starts making real weapons.
The world has been very careful in its response to this nuclear aspect. The US has decided not to get directly involved, but it is still putting diplomatic pressure on both sides. This American way of doing things is part of a bigger change in the U.S. Middle East policy that focuses on keeping the balance of power in the region instead of getting directly involved.
Key Nuclear Facilities: What Happened After the Attack and Why It Matters
| Facility | Impact | Strategic Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Natanz Enrichment | Minor Damage | Main Uranium Enrichment |
| Arak Heavy Water | Partially Disrupted | Pathway for Making Plutonium |
| Parchin Military | Big Effect | Weaponization Research |
Changes in Regional Power and the Dynamics of Proxy Networks
The direct conflict between Israel and Iran has changed the regional proxy network that has been a part of Middle Eastern conflicts for decades. Hezbollah’s surprisingly calm response to the first Israeli attacks shows that the group is weaker after a year of fighting with Israel. It also shows how proxy groups have to think about a lot of things when their sponsors fight directly.
The fact that Hezbollah didn’t escalate the conflict significantly at first is a sign of a strategic shift, not a sign of weakness in the organisation. Warnings from the Lebanese government against getting the country involved in another war have made it impossible for Hezbollah to use its large missile stockpile to get around political limits. This dynamic shows how proxy relationships get more complicated when sponsors go from indirect to direct confrontation.
The Houthis’ measured response in the Red Sea also shows that they are carefully considering the risks of escalation. The group has kept up the pressure on Israeli maritime interests, but it has avoided the kind of huge escalation that could lead to more international involvement. This restraint suggests that proxy groups still have a lot of freedom to make strategic decisions, even when their sponsors are at odds with each other.
What Does Economic Warfare Mean for Energy Security?
The economic effects of the Israel-Iran conflict go beyond the costs of war. They also affect important issues like the security of global energy supplies and the stability of the region’s economy. Iran’s strategic position controlling the Strait of Hormuz gives it the ability to affect global oil markets. Israel’s technological advantages in protecting energy infrastructure give it defensive capabilities that have not been tested in previous conflicts.
The initial market reaction to the conflict saw oil prices surge by over 15% in the first week, reflecting global concerns about supply disruption. However, these price rises have been partly offset by more production from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This shows how regional economic ties have changed to make things more stable during times of crisis.
The Gulf states’ response to the conflict has been especially impressive in terms of diplomacy. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have not picked sides directly. Instead, they have stressed their commitment to regional stability while keeping economic ties with both sides in the conflict. This method takes into account what we’ve learned from past regional conflicts about the costs of division.
The conflict has effects on global supply chains that go beyond energy markets. Israel is a technology hub, and Iran is a key player in regional trade networks. These two countries’ actions have caused problems that affect everything from semiconductor production to agricultural exports. These economic ties make it more likely that people will try to avoid conflict, which may not be the case if security is the only concern.
International Law and Past Diplomatic Actions
The conflict between Israel and Iran makes it hard to figure out how international law applies to preemptive military action and the use of force in today’s international relations. Israel’s reason for its preemptive strikes—to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons—is similar to arguments made in past wars, but this time against a more advanced enemy that can hit back harder.
There is still a lot of debate about the international legal framework for preemptive self-defense. Different countries and legal scholars have different ideas about when this kind of action is okay. The Israel-Iran case is hard because of the time factor: the threat is not immediate, but it is possible, and the window for effective action may be closing.
Iran’s legal strategy has been to focus on accusations of regime change instead of more traditional self-defense arguments. Tehran tries to get international law protections for sovereign governments by saying that Israel’s actions are not about security but about trying to destabilise the Iranian government. This makes Tehran look like the victim of aggression.
As expected, the United Nations Security Council’s response to the conflict has been limited by disagreements among the major powers. However, the response from the rest of the world has been very measured. This restraint shows that the legal issues are complicated and that quick international action could make the conflict worse instead of better.
Information Operations and Intelligence Warfare
The war has shown how advanced modern intelligence warfare is, with both sides showing skills that go far beyond what is normally done in war. Israel’s ability to carry out operations in Iran using local resources and cutting-edge technology shows a level of intelligence penetration that few other conflicts have shown before.
To kill several high-ranking Iranian nuclear scientists and military leaders at the beginning of the war, intelligence capabilities that combine people, technology, and operational accuracy were needed. These operations show that years of planning and money have gone into building up intelligence infrastructure that goes far beyond just military planning.
Iran’s counterintelligence response has also been very advanced, using both old-fashioned security measures and cutting-edge technological countermeasures. The country’s ability to keep operational security for its retaliatory strikes while being heavily watched by Israel shows that it is very resilient and has advanced operational skills.
The information warfare part of the conflict has been especially notable for being careful and exact. In this case, both sides have stayed away from the kinds of huge disinformation campaigns that can make things worse than they already are. This restraint shows that both sides still want to keep things from getting worse, even when there is fighting going on.
Communications and Messaging for Diplomacy and Strategy
The diplomatic talks about the conflict between Israel and Iran have been carefully planned to keep things from getting worse while also keeping future plans vague. Both sides have used public statements and private diplomatic channels to show where they stand without making any promises that would make it impossible to negotiate in the future.
Israeli strategic communications have made it clear that their actions are defensive, but they have kept things vague about what they will do next. Prime Minister Netanyahu has talked a lot about Iranian nuclear threats in public, but he hasn’t used language that could be seen as calling for more conflict or regime change. This method shows a deep understanding of how public communications can limit or open up future diplomatic options.
Iran’s diplomatic messages have been just as careful, mixing strong language about revenge with hints about possible chances to talk things over. The country’s focus on changing the legal system instead of escalating the military suggests a plan to keep its legitimacy at home while keeping its diplomatic options open abroad.
Third-party diplomatic messaging has been very important, especially in the early stages of the conflict. Statements from the European Union, the Arab League, and individual countries’ diplomatic efforts have all stressed de-escalation while avoiding the kind of one-sided pressure that could make things worse.
Possible Futures and Ways to Talk Things Out
There are likely many interconnected factors that will affect the course of the Israel-Iran conflict, and these factors go beyond just military concerns. Domestic political pressures in both countries, the way alliances work in the region, and international diplomatic efforts will all have an effect on how the conflict grows and possibly ends.
There is still a chance for a negotiated settlement, even though fighting is still going on. However, this would require a lot of new diplomatic ideas to deal with the security issues that led both sides to take military action. Any sustainable agreement would need to address Iranian nuclear development, Israeli security guarantees, and regional power balance questions in ways that previous diplomatic efforts have not achieved.
It is still unclear what role major powers play in resolving conflicts. Because the US doesn’t want to get directly involved, European allies, regional powers, and international organisations can step in and help. However, the issues at hand may be so complicated that only the involvement of great powers can lead to a long-term solution.
There are still other possible scenarios for escalation, such as:
- Iran testing nuclear weapons
- A wider regional conflict with proxy forces
- Attacks on the world’s energy infrastructure
In each of these situations, there would be different diplomatic problems and the world would have to respond in different ways.
What Modern Diplomats Can Learn from This
The conflict between Israel and Iran teaches us a lot about how international relations have changed over time and how diplomacy is changing in the 21st century. The fact that traditional diplomatic tools didn’t work to stop the situation from getting worse shows that we need to find new ways to deal with conflicts between regional powers with advanced military capabilities.
The conflict shows that nuclear proliferation puts time pressures on diplomatic processes that can be too much to handle. When the development of nuclear weapons takes months, traditional diplomatic engagement, which can take years to get results, is not enough to deal with security issues.
Proxy relationships are important in modern conflicts, so we need new diplomatic frameworks that can deal with the complicated relationships between state sponsors and non-state actors. The conflict between Israel and Iran shows that proxy restraint can help keep things from getting worse, but it also shows that proxy capabilities can make things worse in ways that sponsors can’t fully control.
The economic aspects of modern wars make it both risky and possible for diplomats to get involved. Economic interdependence can help limit conflict, but it can also make states more vulnerable, which they must deal with through military or diplomatic means.
In Conclusion, What This Means for the Security Architecture of the Region
The war between Israel and Iran is a major threat to the Middle East’s post-Cold War regional security structure. The outcome of the conflict will probably have an effect on regional power dynamics, alliances, and diplomatic norms for a long time.
The way the world reacts to this conflict will set important standards for how similar situations are handled in the future. The balance between respecting sovereign rights and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons will probably affect how diplomats deal with other possible nuclear developments around the world.
The war showed both the pros and cons of using military force to deal with nuclear proliferation issues, and this will change how leaders around the world think about strategy. The fact that Israeli strikes have only partially delayed Iran’s nuclear development, along with the risks of escalation that come with such actions, shows how complicated it is for countries to deal with nuclear proliferation.
The way this conflict develops will probably have an effect on bigger issues like the role of international law, how well international institutions work, and the chances for diplomacy in a time of great power competition and regional rivalry.
The war between Israel and Iran is a sign that current diplomatic frameworks don’t work, but it also gives us a chance to come up with new ways to deal with conflicts between regional powers in a time when nuclear weapons are spreading and military technology is getting better. The things we learned from this war will probably have an effect on how people think about and act in international relations for a long time.
The analytical points of view in this assessment are based on the opinions of senior diplomats about publicly available information and current geopolitical events in international security matters. They do not, however, represent the official positions of the government. Readers are encouraged to share their thoughts on these complicated regional dynamics and how they affect global security architecture as a whole.
