Israel-Iran Conflict

In the early hours of June 22, 2025, the Middle East entered a new phase of strategic confrontation following the United States' execution of a calibrated series of precision airstrikes against three of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities: the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Enrichment Complex, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. These strikes marked a significant inflection point in American policy toward Iran's nuclear program, signifying a deliberate departure from the long-preferred instruments of sanctions, diplomacy, and covert sabotage toward direct military action aimed at functionally dismantling Iran’s enrichment capacity.   The U.S. intervention did not occur in a vacuum but was preceded by a sweeping nine-day Israeli air campaign— “Operation Rising Lion”—which inflicted substantial damage on Iran’s conventional military and nuclear infrastructure. Yet U.S. strategic assessments concluded that Israeli capabilities alone would fall short of neutralizing the deeply buried Fordow facility, located nearly 90 meters beneath the mountains near Qom. Accordingly, Washington deployed B-2 Spirit bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base and launched submarine-based Tomahawk cruise missiles, employing—for the first time in combat—the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound precision-guided “bunker buster” weapon. The strikes were designed not merely to degrade but to decapitate Iran’s uranium enrichment trajectory at every critical juncture.   While the U.S. administration proclaimed the operation a “complete and total success,” Iran’s leadership sought to downplay the extent of the damage, signalling both resilience and continued intent to pursue its nuclear ambitions. Tehran’s initial response refrained from large-scale direct retaliation, instead signalling a likely pivot toward asymmetric reprisal via regional proxies such as the Houthis, alongside diplomatic escalation and renewed threats to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This calibrated restraint highlights the regime’s acute awareness of the potentially existential consequences of a direct confrontation with the United States.   Structurally, the strikes reflect a paradigmatic shift in U.S. non-proliferation doctrine: from risk management through deterrence and arms control to selective, high-precision coercion. The operation also underscores a changing regional deterrence architecture, in which American military intervention is no longer conditioned by alliance consensus or Gulf coordination, as several key Arab states were reportedly excluded from prior notification. This signals an American willingness to act unilaterally—or bilaterally with Israel—when core proliferation red lines are deemed to have been crossed.

On June 22, the United States attacked three main nuclear facilities in Iran (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan), claiming that these strikes were successful and incapacitated the facilities. Following this attack, Iran fired a new wave of ballistic rockets at Israel while pledging to respond more fiercely to the U.S. attack. The degree of Iranian retaliation will be determined on whether the U.S. was successful in its attempt to completely destroy Iran's nuclear programme.   If Iran managed to move the enriched uranium into new safe places before the attack, or if these materials are being safely stored in the same facilities underground, beyond the reach of the U.S., the Iranian retaliation might be limited. However, if these materials have been destroyed, it is expected that Iran will retaliate strongly, as the U.S. and Israel have crossed the red lines that Iran has already set. In this case, Iran will tend to activate its proxy groups in the Middle East and get them involved.

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.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow, indispensable artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows– stands on a cliff. As geopolitical tensions intensify across the Middle East, fuelled by escalating Iran-Israel tensions and the shadow of direct United States (U.S.) involvement, the once-unthinkable threat of its closure looms larger than ever with Iran’s threat to close or block the Strait. In spite of the catastrophic global implications of such an act, the volatile depths of this potential crisis will be explored, unravelling the motives that could push Iran to choke this global lifeline, exposing the monumental security and geopolitical fallout, and revealing the catastrophic economic shockwave that would consume nations far beyond the region.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched an unprecedented and overt military operation against Iran, codenamed "Operation Rising Lion", marking a decisive shift in its strategic doctrine regarding Tehran’s nuclear trajectory. The operation, involving more than 200 combat aircraft—including F-15Is, F-16Is, and F-35s—targeted key nuclear infrastructure, foremost among them the Natanz enrichment facility, in addition to sensitive military and intelligence compounds in Tehran and suspected subterranean missile installations across multiple provinces.   The aerial strikes were not executed in isolation. They were accompanied by limited ground incursions carried out by Israeli special operations forces inside Iranian territory, alongside locally launched drones and sabotage missions activated by embedded networks, indicating a hybrid warfare architecture integrating airpower, cyber capability, and covert assets.   The operation resulted in the assassination of several senior Iranian military officials, including IRGC Commander Hossein Salami and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, as well as prominent nuclear scientists. Nevertheless, the intensely fortified Fordow enrichment facility, situated beneath a mountain near Qom, remained untouched, preserving Iran’s technical capacity to resume high-grade uranium enrichment if it chooses to do so.   Iran’s immediate response consisted of launching over 100 armed drones toward Israeli airspace, followed by announcements to construct a new, “impenetrable” enrichment site and to upgrade centrifuge infrastructure at Fordow. Globally, oil prices surged by over 10% within 24 hours, reflecting fears of regional destabilisation, particularly in light of Iran’s proximity to critical maritime chokepoints.   This paper thus aims to analyse the likely contours of Iran’s retaliatory strategy and to assess the broader geopolitical ramifications of the Israeli strike, particularly as they pertain to the security and strategic postures of the Arab Gulf in light of the retaliatory actions of Iran.