Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene Israel's Security Cabinet on Aug. 05, 2025 to approve plans for a full military takeover of the Gaza Strip, marking a critical escalation in the conflict with Hamas. The proposal, however, faced strong opposition from within the Israeli military and from hostage families, who raised serious concerns about the humanitarian impact and operational risks. While the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) already controls around 75% of Gaza, Netanyahu pushed to expand military operations to cover the entire territory, including densely populated areas believed to harbour hostages—a plan opposed by IDF Chief of Staff Lt Gen. Eyal Zamir. This decision came after ceasefire and hostage negotiations collapsed, with Netanyahu stressing the objectives of defeating Hamas, securing the release of hostages, and neutralising Gaza as a future threat to Israel.   In a dramatic development, Netanyahu cancelled a planned visit by Lt Gen. Zamir to Washington upon briefing him on the new direction and accelerating strategic shifts. Zamir explicitly rejected the proposed plan, threatening resignation if it were approved. The military’s reservations centred on fears for the hostages’ lives, particularly in areas such as Deir al-Balah that had not been fully “cleansed” of Hamas fighters. Additionally, IDF leadership expressed concerns about the erosion of the army’s combat capabilities, citing manpower shortages after nearly two years of continuous conflict, thereby urging a more cautious containment strategy that would exert pressure on Hamas without engaging in a protracted and expansive occupation.

As-Suwayda has emerged as a profoundly complex arena amid the sweeping transformations reshaping Syria following the fall of the Assad regime and the formation of a new centralized transitional government. Within this volatile context, calls for self-determination from segments of the local Druze community have gained traction.   There are four critical fault lines worth exploring: the acute internal fragmentation of the Druze polity; the ideological and constitutional dissonance between local autonomy demands and the centralized architecture of the new Syrian state; the near-total economic collapse of the province; and the intensity of regional entanglement that constrains meaningful sovereignty.

Recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have reignited global concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Over 12 days, the region witnessed a direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel, accompanied by U.S. airstrikes on critical sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran responded by launching retaliatory attacks on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.   While Washington declared the “complete destruction” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, subsequent assessments suggest these operations fell short of their strategic goals. Key elements of the Fordow facility, including vital centrifuge systems, remained partially operational, preserving a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear capability.   Growing uncertainty surrounds the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, particularly after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% are unaccounted for—a volume theoretically sufficient to produce multiple nuclear warheads. Iranian authorities acknowledged relocating this material to “secure locations” ahead of the strikes. However, Western intelligence sources indicate that locating and neutralising these hidden stockpiles through military means remains exceedingly difficult.   This ambiguity intensifies the risks of nuclear proliferation and grants Tehran a potent strategic asset in any future diplomatic negotiations, while keeping the spectre of renewed military escalation ever-present.   Given these circumstances, Iran’s nuclear programme appears to have endured only a temporary disruption. Tehran retains the technical expertise and human infrastructure necessary to reconstruct its facilities and resume enrichment efforts. As such, the unknown status of the enriched uranium now emerges as a critical variable that could shape the region’s security landscape. Should Iran revive its nuclear activities—or should external actors attempt to strike these undisclosed caches—the result could be a new flashpoint in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel.   This analysis examines the disparity between political declarations proclaiming the end of Iran’s nuclear threat and the ground realities that suggest its persistence. It explores the strategic implications of enriched uranium remaining outside international oversight, as well as the broader consequences for regional stability and the evolution of conflict in the Middle East.

Iran’s uranium enrichment dilemma constitutes the central axis of the ongoing nuclear dispute, where technical considerations intersect with imperatives of national sovereignty, and where international legal frameworks collide with the strategic logic of deterrence. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic, the possession of a full nuclear fuel cycle—including domestic enrichment—is not merely a technical aspiration but an inherent sovereign right enshrined in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet, within Iran’s political consciousness, this “right” transcends legalistic interpretation; it has become a symbolic pillar of national autonomy and a manifestation of defiance against what is perceived as Western hegemony.   Conversely, the U.S. and its allies view the same enrichment capability as a direct gateway to weaponization. The centrifuge-based architecture of Iran’s program enables, with little more than a political decision, a rapid transition from low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade fissile material within a matter of weeks. These concerns escalated significantly following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 2025 report confirming that Iran had amassed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—an amount theoretically sufficient to produce three to five nuclear weapons, should the enrichment level be increased to 90%, without requiring any additional infrastructure.   Iran’s historical experience—from its exclusion from the Eurodif consortium in 1979 to the collapse of the Tehran Research Reactor fuel deal in 2009—has deeply entrenched the belief among Iran’s ruling elite that reliance on external fuel guarantees is neither secure nor sustainable. As such, any negotiated settlement that requires Tehran to abandon domestic enrichment is perceived as a fundamental affront to its sovereign dignity and strategic autonomy.   Thus, the essence of the conflict lies not in centrifuge counts or enrichment levels per se, but in the deeply embedded political architecture of mutual distrust. A sustainable resolution cannot be achieved without a broader security framework that redefines Iran’s position within both the regional and global order.   This study adopts a multi-layered approach to the enrichment dilemma, treating it not as a narrowly technical issue but as a strategic contest between sovereign entitlement and non-proliferation imperatives. It proceeds along four main analytical axes: the technical properties of enrichment, the political and strategic motivations driving Iran’s position, the security calculus of Western powers, and the viability of proposed diplomatic frameworks. The study ultimately affirms that any lasting agreement must emerge from a comprehensive reconfiguration of Iran’s relationship with the international system.

On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that, using its “bunker buster” bomb, the United States had launched an attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility. While Trump declared the strike a success, the complete destruction of the facility remains unconfirmed. This raises a critical question: will Trump consider using a tactical nuclear weapon to ensure its elimination?   Tactical nuclear weapons, unlike strategic ones, are smaller in yield and designed for targeted use on the battlefield rather than for widespread destruction. Though less devastating in scale, their use would carry serious regional and global repercussions.

Amid the intensifying confrontation between Iran and Israel throughout 2025, the prospect of a direct strike against Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility has moved from a remote possibility to a plausible escalation scenario. As military operations increasingly target strategic infrastructure on both sides, the regional system faces the risk of a threshold breach—one that could trigger not only military and political consequences but also a multidimensional crisis involving radioactive contamination, mass displacement, and economic collapse across multiple states.   While Israel would undoubtedly bear the immediate brunt—facing mass civilian evacuations, irreversible environmental degradation in the Negev, and the paralysis of its agricultural and tourism sectors—the ripple effects would extend far beyond its borders.   Jordan’s border regions and agricultural zones in the Jordan Valley could face contamination and humanitarian strain, potentially requiring the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and northern Suez region could suffer fallout exposure, disrupting global shipping through the canal and threatening the Red Sea tourism corridor. Saudi Arabia’s northern provinces, including areas tied to its Vision 2030 megaprojects, could face both environmental and demographic disruption.

The war between Iran and Israel is arguably a war of survival for the regime in Iran. Attacking Iran seemed to be a logical step for Israel after almost destroying its arms of proxies in the region. the regime, which stands on three pillars, namely, its conventional missile arsenal, its extensive network of regional proxy forces, and its nuclear program, is facing a war of attrition that might eventually end the very survival of the regime. The fall of the regime in Iran goes beyond mere regime change, rather, it is considered a state collapse.   The collapse of the Iranian state would have dire consequences for the region. However, the possibility of the regime surviving remains a significant scenario. While the fall of Iran is widely regarded as a regional catastrophe, its continued survival, particularly with Tehran asserting itself as a regional superpower, could prove even more destabilizing for Israel and its allies. Both outcomes carry profound regional and global implications, signalling a transformation in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The pressing question is not whether change is coming, but rather: what will the new Middle East look like?

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, striking nuclear facilities, missile bases, air defenses, and targeting military leaders and nuclear scientists. In response, Iran retaliated the same evening with firing over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones at Tel Aviv and Haifa.   Israel and Iran have continued to trade blows and there are no significant signs of a potential slowdown in the conflict between the long-time adversaries. The spectre that looms over both is that of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has gone from negotiating with Iran for a nuclear deal to pushing for its “unconditional surrender” in the span of a week. as the U.S. simultaneously repositions its military assets to potentially strike Iran.

Operation Rising Lion, executed by Israel on June 13, 2025, constituted a lightning strike aimed at crippling the very core of Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterised this pre-emptive operation as a necessary measure to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival," drawing upon the Begin Doctrine previously brought to bear in analogous strikes against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. The operation's objectives were marked by strategic multiplicity and diversity, encompassing the targeting of numerous nuclear facilities, alongside senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists, in an endeavour to inflict maximum damage upon Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. Israel's intent was not merely confined to disrupting the nuclear program; it extended to undermining Iran's capacity to mount retaliatory assaults and to fend off future waves of Israeli attacks.   The timing of the Israeli operation came on the heels of a meticulous assessment by the Israeli leadership, which had concluded that Iran was on the cusp of achieving a dangerous breakthrough in its pursuit of nuclear weaponry, thereby necessitating the exploitation of a narrow temporal window before Iranian nuclear facilities became either too advanced or too robustly protected. In this context, this analysis aims to delve into the rationale underpinning the operation, to account for Tehran's apparent failure to parry the assault effectively, and to examine the attack's repercussions on Iran's domestic landscape. Furthermore, it seeks to investigate the potential pathways Iran might pursue to reconstitute its deterrent capability.

Between June 13 and 14, 2025, Israel executed one of the most daring and sophisticated military operations in its contemporary history: a multi-pronged aerial strike that penetrated deep into Iranian sovereign territory in an unprecedented fashion. The offensive targeted critical nuclear infrastructure, including the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities, alongside additional military installations near Isfahan. Furthermore, the operation struck key airbases integral to Iran’s air defence network, most notably Hamadan and Tabriz airfields. In parallel, Israeli forces targeted senior leadership within both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the conventional military, with subsequent intelligence assessments confirming direct hits and casualties among Iran’s high command.   Iran's response, though swift, bore the hallmarks of operational improvisation. Seeking to reassert deterrence and project resilience, Tehran launched over one hundred unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on the same day, primarily of the Shahed-136 and Shahed-131 variants. These drones traversed approximately 2,000 kilometres through Iraqi and Syrian airspace. However, the majority failed to reach Israeli territory. Instead, they were intercepted by a multi-layered defensive network composed of Jordanian, Saudi, and Israeli air defence systems, all heavily supported by U.S. early-warning and tracking technologies. A large number were neutralized over Iraq’s Anbar province and the deserts of Jordan, while others were downed over northern Saudi Arabia.   On June 14, Iran escalated by launching its principal retaliatory strike in the form of a large-scale, coordinated ballistic missile attack. Over 150 ballistic missiles were deployed, prominently including Ghadr-110 (with a range of up to 3,000 km), Khorramshahr, and Sejjil-2—among the most advanced systems in Iran’s medium-range missile arsenal. These missiles targeted multiple sites deep inside Israeli territory. A notable strike occurred near Israel’s Ministry of Defence compound in the Kirya complex in central Tel Aviv, where one missile reportedly caused structural damage and minor injuries, though no fatalities among military personnel were confirmed. Additional missiles struck civilian infrastructure in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Rishon LeZion, injuring several individuals—one critically—with the majority suffering only mild to moderate wounds.   Despite the magnitude of the missile barrage, the strategic yield fell significantly short of Tehran’s expectations. This underperformance prompted Iranian authorities to broaden the scope of their confrontation, issuing explicit warnings that U.S. military assets across the region—particularly in the Gulf—would henceforth be considered legitimate targets. These threats referenced high-value installations such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, and U.S. military positions in Iraq, including Ain al-Asad and Camp Victoria in Baghdad, as well as naval facilities in Bahrain.   From Iran’s strategic vantage point, any U.S. involvement—especially in reinforcing Israeli air defences—constitutes direct participation in the hostilities. This rationale is now used to justify Tehran’s threats to strike American military positions across the Gulf. The implications of this shift are profound: for the first time since 2020, the prospect of open military confrontation in the Persian Gulf has become a credible geopolitical scenario. The regional deterrence equation, long balanced on latent threat and calculated ambiguity, has now entered a phase of dangerous volatility.   This analysis seeks to offer a comprehensive examination of the strategic motivations underpinning Iran’s threats to target U.S. military bases in the Gulf region. By synthesizing operational data—namely, Iran’s patterns of ballistic missile and drone deployment—with broader structural dynamics of regional and international power distribution, to elucidate the strategic logic through which American military installations in the Gulf emerge as priority targets within Iran’s evolving deterrence doctrine.

In George Orwell's classic 1984, his world was held together by unending war: In the book, messages of hate and reasons to fear were broadcast each day to encourage fearful, slavish masses to rail against an imaginary enemy rather than their actual masters.   US and British geo-strategists have historically been masters of manipulation, redrawing the map of the world to suit Western economic, geopolitical, and military interests, particularly in the MENA region. Their detractors are convinced that their broad goal is Western domination of the area via surrogates and partners such as Israel and Iran (via the back door) to retain control over natural resources and waterways while ensuring those resources do not fall into the hands of competitors such as China and Russia. A school of thought contends that they manufacture sectarian conflicts on the principle of “divide and rule,” creating tensions that justify the installation of military bases and fuel the military-industrial complex through arms sales.   A 2008 paper titled America’s Divide and Rule Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya highlights US efforts to create divisions within Middle Eastern and Central Asian populations through ethno-cultural, religious, sectarian, national, and political differences. According to this perspective, sectarian divides—particularly between Sunni and Shia Muslims—have been deliberately cultivated to weaken regional unity and facilitate geopolitical control.   The Iraq War (2003) and its aftermath further exacerbated these sectarian tensions. The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Ba'athist regime and the empowerment of Shia and Kurdish groups created a power vacuum, fueling sectarian violence. Groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq (later ISIS) thrived under these conditions, exploiting sectarian grievances. The redrawing of Iraq’s internal boundaries, particularly the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government, further solidified ethnic divisions. Toby Dodge, in Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a Road to Peace, argues that the US approach to state-building in Iraq inadvertently deepened these fault lines.   Similarly, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War (2011–2024), through support for various opposition groups, contributed to the country’s fragmentation along ethnic and sectarian lines. The conflict saw the rise of numerous factions, many of which received US backing. The emergence and territorial control of Kurdish-dominated forces in northeastern Syria, supported by the US in the fight against ISIS, created tensions with Arab populations and neighboring Turkey. The conflict has been widely analyzed as having a significant sectarian dimension, with regional powers backing different factions along Sunni-Shia lines.   Middle East expert and author Fred Reed states: “One might be forgiven for surmising that the current thrust of US policy in the Middle East and through the Muslim world is to exacerbate Sunni-Shiite divisions.”   US foreign policy in the region has often been perceived as favoring certain regional powers over others, sometimes along sectarian lines, exacerbating existing tensions. The complex relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia (a Sunni-majority state) and its rivalry with Iran (a Shia-majority state) has frequently been interpreted through this lens, even if US interests are primarily geopolitical. Support for different factions in conflicts like the Yemeni Civil War has similarly been framed within the context of regional sectarian rivalries.   Certain think tanks and policy circles in the US have promoted ideas that emphasize sectarian and ethnic divisions in the Middle East as a way to understand and potentially manage the region. Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan argues that a major US concern in the Middle East is oil. With two-thirds of US oil expected to be imported by 2020, and 65% of the world's remaining oil reserves located in the Middle East, he suggests that a strategy of “divide and conquer” is aimed at keeping strategic control of these resources. Hallinan also highlights the lucrative nature of ongoing Middle Eastern tensions for the US arms industry, citing that countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman have spent over $150 billion on arms purchases.   While the significance of oil in US foreign policy has arguably shifted due to increased domestic production and diversification of energy sources, the Middle East remains strategically important for global energy security. A 2024 report from the Council for a Secure America notes that US oil imports from the Middle East have reached a record low, falling below 11% of total imports. However, this shift does not negate the region’s role in global energy markets.   The US continues to maintain strong relationships with key Gulf oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While policy priorities have expanded beyond securing oil supplies to include counterterrorism, regional stability, and containing rival powers, access to stable energy markets remains a key consideration. Events like the war in Ukraine have further underscored the interconnectedness of global energy markets and the importance of stable Middle Eastern oil production in preventing global price shocks. In fiscal year 2024, US military sales surged, with direct commercial sales rising to $200.8 billion from $157.5 billion in 2023. Government-facilitated arms sales also increased to $117.9 billion. The Middle East remains a significant market for US arms exports, with over $5.5 billion in approved arms sales to Egypt and Morocco alone in December 2024.   The underlying argument of this paper is that beyond the apparent hostilities and rivalries in the region, there exists a covert strategic alliance between Iran, Israel, and the United States. This cooperation manifests in various ways, including indirect coordination in conflict zones, intelligence-sharing, and economic transactions that defy public rhetoric. Despite Iran’s portrayal as a staunch adversary of both the US and Israel, instances of tacit collaboration—such as Iranian oil exports finding their way to markets through indirect channels, US tolerance of Iranian-backed militias in specific contexts, and shared interests in counterbalancing regional actors like Turkey and the Gulf states—suggest a more complex dynamic. This hidden alliance reflects a pragmatic approach to maintaining regional equilibrium, securing strategic interests, and preventing the emergence of truly independent powers that could challenge the existing order.

The Houthi armed group has been launching missile and drone attacks on Israel since the start of the Hamas-Israel war in October 2023. While these actions have been undertaken to show solidarity with Gaza and the Palestinian cause, the Houthi utilised these attacks to increase its popularity in Yemen. Moreover, the Houthi group, which is mainly supported by Iran, used these attacks to prove that it is capable militarily of engaging with foreign powers, hence delivering a message to the Aden-based legitimate government and its Gulf allies that it is militarily ready to engage with them.