The war has reaffirmed a grim truth: the Iran-Israel conflict is not a conventional war with a clear endpoint
Dr. Abdullah G. Arijo
The twelve-day conflict between Iran and Israel, recently brought to a halt by a ceasefire brokered by Trump (Who himself was behind this war), has resulted in an uneasy calm across the Middle East. Although both sides assert strategic victories, the truth is far more complex. This was not a conflict with a definitive winner or loser; rather, it was a harsh exchange that revealed vulnerabilities, recalibrated deterrence, and intensified the region’s geopolitical divisions.
On June 13, Israel initiated a first strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. These attacks represented a significant escalation, breaching a long-avoided red line. Israel’s objective was explicit: to undermine Iran’s nuclear capabilities and reinforce its deterrent posture after years of covert conflict. Following these strikes, U.S. forces became involved, joining the bombardment of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities as well as U.S. bases in the region, including Al Udeid in Qatar. The exchange was intense but ultimately short-lived.
From a military perspective, Israel showcased its capability to conduct strikes deep within Iranian territory and its ability to coordinate effectively with the United States during this high-stakes operation. The nation also highlighted the effectiveness of its missile defence systems, which intercepted the majority of Iran’s retaliatory attacks. Although the Israeli public was understandably shaken, they largely supported the government’s actions. Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the operation a success, emphasizing the destruction of critical Iranian facilities and the subsequent weakening of Iran’s deterrent posture.
Iran, on the other hand, absorbed the initial blows and responded with a show of resilience. While its nuclear infrastructure suffered visible damage, Iranian officials insisted that the core of their program remained intact. They emphasized their preparedness for recovery and vowed to continue enrichment. The Iranian parliament even moved to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), signalling a hardening stance. Tehran’s ability to launch missiles at Israel and U.S. bases, despite the damage, was framed domestically as a symbol of defiance.
However, beneath the rhetoric, both sides have endured significant costs. Civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 600, with thousands more injured and displaced. Meanwhile, Israeli cities experienced missile barrages, resulting in over 3,000 injuries. The economic impact is still under assessment, but initial estimates indicate billions in infrastructure damage and lost productivity. The psychological repercussions on both societies are deeply profound.
The ceasefire, announced by Donald Trump on social media, was as abrupt as the war’s onset. It came after a final Israeli strike on a radar station near Tehran, which violated the initial truce. Trump’s frustration with Israel’s actions was palpable, but he ultimately secured a renewed commitment from both sides. For now, the guns are silent.
Yet the underlying tensions remain unresolved. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are undeterred, and Israel’s security concerns are as acute as ever. The war has not eliminated Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, nor has it dismantled the regime’s ideological commitment to opposing Israel. Conversely, Israel’s willingness to strike first and to draw in the United States has set a precedent that could embolden or alarm other regional actors.
The future of the Iran-Israel relationship hinges on several factors. First, the role of external powers. The United States, under Trump’s assertive diplomacy, played a decisive role in both escalation and de-escalation. But Washington’s long-term strategy remains unclear. Will it pursue a new nuclear deal with Iran, or continue to back Israel’s hardline approach? Europe, too, has a role to play. France, Germany, and the UK have signalled interest in reviving diplomatic channels, but their leverage is limited without U.S. alignment.
Second, the internal dynamics within Iran and Israel will shape their next moves. In Iran, the war has intensified nationalist sentiment but also exposed the regime’s vulnerabilities. Calls for reform and accountability may grow louder, especially if economic hardship deepens. In Israel, Netanyahu’s government has gained a temporary boost, but questions about the sustainability of its security doctrine persist.
Third, the regional landscape is shifting. Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, have been weakened in recent years, but they remain potent actors. The war may prompt Iran to double down on asymmetric strategies, using these groups to harass Israel without confrontation. Conversely, Israel may seek to consolidate alliances with Sunni Arab states, leveraging shared concerns about Iran to build a new regional order.
Ultimately, the war has reaffirmed a grim truth: the Iran-Israel conflict is not a conventional war with a clear endpoint. It is a long, grinding struggle shaped by ideology, deterrence, and shifting alliances. The recent hostilities were a chapter, not a conclusion.
The ceasefire presents a limited opportunity for diplomatic engagement, yet it remains precarious. Absent a comprehensive framework that addresses Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s security issues, and the dynamics of regional power, another outbreak of conflict is not merely possible but highly probable. The international community must act decisively to ensure that this fragile halt does not serve as a precursor to a far graver situation.
In the end, neither Iran nor Israel can claim victory. What they have achieved is a reprieve, bought at great cost. Whether they use it to chart a new course or prepare for the next battle remains to be seen.
Read: Conflict Alters Global Security Paradigms
_________________
Dr. Abdullah G. Arijo is a retired professor, ex: chairman, Department of Parasitology, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam, ex-advisor Academics & P&D to Vice Chancellor, SAU Tandojam. Email: Email: abdullaharijo@gmail.com
