The Middle East is once again on the brink of a dangerous escalation after Iran’s recent missile strike on Israel. On October 1, Israel’s night sky lit up with balls of fire as Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel. This missile strike was in response to Israel’s killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut and the July 31 assassination of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
Israel, in response, has promised consequences for Iran. Now, the world waits to see what Israel will do next as it continues bombing Gaza and Lebanon. Can peace prevail in the Middle East, or is a broader war more likely?
Israel’s Human Rights Violations
In nearly a year of war in Gaza, the Israeli military has killed more than 43,000 Palestinians, many of them women, children, journalists, and health professionals. Israeli airstrikes on civilian infrastructure—homes, schools, hospitals—have drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups, who argue that Israel’s disproportionate use of force violates international law. These actions, justified in the name of self-defense, often blur the lines between military targets and civilian populations, raising ethical and legal questions about Israel’s conduct in warfare. In Lebanon, Israeli air raids have displaced more than 1.2 million people, almost 20% of the population in a matter of weeks.
The head of the UN says Israel’s actions risk engulfing the region in the broader war involving international powers. The UN chief warned, saying, “The raging fires in the Middle East are fast becoming an inferno. It’s high time to stop the sickening cycle of escalation after escalation that is leading the people of the Middle East straight over the cliff.”
Still, the US and most European nations act hypocritically, continuing to supply weapons to Israel even as they call for a ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza. Despite the pleas of the UN, there is no sign of an end to this cycle of intensifying violence.
Beyond the uses of brute military force, Israel’s broader strategy in the region has been equally problematic. They continue to expand settlements in the West Bank while imposing a harsh blockade on the Palestinians. By doing so, Israel has created a humanitarian crisis that is a fertile ground for insurrection. The lack of genuine political alternatives for Palestinians, along with Israel’s increasingly militarized attitude, exacerbates the situation and undermines further possibility of peace.
The Role of Proxies
The ideological rift between Iran and Israel runs deep. Iran has long positioned itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause, using anti-Israel rhetoric as a means of garnering influence in the Middle East. This policy has also served a pragmatic purpose, allowing Iran to project power and expand its sphere of influence through proxy forces across the region. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militant group, and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, have emerged as two of Iran’s most potent proxy forces in the fight against Israel.
Hezbollah, armed and funded mainly by Iran, has posed a significant threat to Israel from its base in Lebanon. Iran has supplied Hezbollah with sophisticated rockets and missiles, posing a direct military threat to northern Israel. Hamas, meanwhile, operates from Gaza and has consistently launched rocket attacks on Israeli cities, drawing significant retaliation from Israel’s military.
The involvement of these proxies in the Israel-Iran conflict is not incidental but central to Iran’s military strategy. By using proxy forces, Iran avoids direct confrontation with Israel while keeping its adversary engaged on multiple fronts. This allows Iran to put pressure on Israel without the consequences or costs of a full-scale war.
Iran’s use of proxies to extend its influence across the Middle East further complicates the situation. Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as various militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, has been a key part of its strategy to challenge Israel’s military dominance in the region. These groups, which have their own local grievances, are often used to carry out attacks on Israeli forces, allowing Iran to maintain plausible deniability.
On the other hand, Israel has worked closely with the United States and other allies to strike Iranian positions in Syria, aiming to disrupt Iran’s logistical networks. However, Israel’s airstrikes that claim to target Iranian militants frequently result in civilian casualties, raising questions about the proportionality of Israel’s use of force.
Iran’s Latest Attack: Escalation or Response?
Iran’s missile strike in April was seen as a significant escalation, but it cannot be viewed in isolation. The attack came against the backdrop of years of Israeli airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, which have frequently targeted militias supported by Iran. To further inflame relations between the two countries, Israel has also been accused of conducting cyberattacks and assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists. From Iran’s perspective, these missile strikes are not just provocations—they are retaliatory measures in a more significant, ongoing conflict with a regional adversary.
In its latest statement, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that any Israeli retaliation would result in a “more crushing and ruinous” response. This rhetoric is emblematic of the dangerous tit-for-tat nature of the conflict, where both sides are locked in a deadly cycle of revenge that threatens to spiral out of control.
However, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, during his recent trip to Qatar, said, “We are not in pursuit of war with Israel. They promised us peace, but Israel has terrorized our guests in Tehran during our presidential inauguration. We want to establish peace. If you disagree, peace will not be established,”
However, there are no such calls from Benjamin Netanyahu, who has painted Iran as Israel’s number one enemy throughout his entire political career.
Is Iran Gearing Up for a War?
Amidst the escalating tensions, Iran appears to be preparing for a wider conflict. In a recent Friday prayer led by Ayatollah Khamenei, millions of Iranians participated even though there was fear of an Israeli strike at the ceremony. He has made it clear that any further attacks by Israel would result in a more robust response from Tehran. Iran’s recent missile strike, they warn, was just a preview of their military capabilities.
Iranian sources have claimed a message was sent to Washington even though Iran and the US don’t maintain a diplomatic relationship. In it, Iran says the period of what it called unilateral self-restraint has ended and that any more Israeli attacks will be met with unconventional responses. Yet, Iran stressed that it does not want a regional war but says that Israel’s unbridled madness must be curbed. They claim that they also notified other Arab countries about the attack.
While some believe that political compromises are still possible, the reality on the ground suggests otherwise. With both Iran and Israel entrenched in their positions, the region is at risk of descending into further chaos. The Iranians are defiant, and so are the Israelis.
Israel’s Stance in the Conflict
Netanyahu responded to the October 1 missile strike at the UN general assembly by saying, “I have a message for the tyrants of Tehran: If you strike us, we will strike you. There is no place in Iran that the long arm of Israel cannot reach, and that’s true of the entire Middle East.” His rhetoric underscores Israel’s aggressive stance in the region, dashing the US and France-led joint call for an immediate 21-day truce between Israel and Hezbollah. He repeatedly denounced the UN as anti-Israel and was met with condemnation by some delegates who walked out.
As Israel retaliates, a more profound issue comes into focus: Israel’s actions often perpetuate rather than mitigate. Over the years, Israel has launched numerous airstrikes aimed at disrupting Iranian supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas, targeting weapons shipments in countries like Syria and Sudan. In 2009, Israeli jets reportedly bombed a convoy in Sudan believed to be smuggling weapons to Gaza, while similar strikes were carried out in Syria in 2013. These operations are part of a larger Israeli strategy to degrade Iran’s ability to arm its proxies.
In its efforts to counter Iran, Israel has also sought alliances beyond its traditional partners in the West. Azerbaijan, a Muslim-majority country with a long-standing partnership with Israel, has become an important strategic ally. Located on Iran’s northern border, Azerbaijan supplies crude oil to Israel and provides a potential launching pad for Israeli strikes against Iran. The relationship between Azerbaijan and Israel has grown since the 1990s, and this partnership offers Israel valuable military and intelligence support in the region.
Another development in Israel’s strategy to counter Iran’s influence has been the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements brokered by the United States that tried to normalize relations between Israel and several Sunni-majority nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The Abraham Accords represent a shift in the geopolitics of the Middle East, with many Sunni states aligning with Israel to counter Iran’s growing influence.
However, one key player in the region remains conspicuously absent from the Abraham Accords: Saudi Arabia. The US has tried to broker a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and in 2023, there were signs that the two nations were close to reaching a historic agreement. However, the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023, widely believed to have been backed by Iran, put those negotiations on hold.
Moreover, Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and southern Lebanon in response to attacks from Iranian-backed militias has done little to weaken these groups. Many argue that Israeli military actions have only strengthened groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which feed off the anger and despair caused by Israel’s actions. Each airstrike, each civilian death, fuels resentment, ensuring that the cycle of violence continues unabated.
Netanyahu’s hardline policies, coupled with his framing of Iran as an existential threat, have contributed to an atmosphere of perpetual conflict. Rather than seeking diplomatic solutions or engaging in meaningful negotiations with Iran and other regional actors, Israel’s approach has been defined by military dominance and a refusal to address the root causes of regional instability. This posture has done little to bring about lasting peace.
The Nuclear Dimension
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a source of contention in the international community. While Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, world powers, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel, are not convinced. Israel itself possesses nuclear weapons, but still, they have been vocal about its opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, Israel’s fears are not unfounded. To Israel, the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran represents a massive threat.
Over the years, Israel has responded with a series of sabotage operations, including cyberattacks and covert operations aimed at delaying Iran’s nuclear progress. One of the most significant incidents occurred in 2020 when an explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility set back Iran’s nuclear program by two years. While Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for these incidents, Iranian officials have repeatedly blamed Israel for such acts of sabotage.
A One-Sided International Response
Despite the complexities of the conflict, much of the international response, particularly from Western powers, has been overwhelmingly in favor of Israel. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have both condemned Iran’s missile strikes and reiterated their support for Israel’s right to defend itself. However, there is a glaring absence of criticism when it comes to Israel’s actions—both in its treatment of Palestinians and its broader military campaign against Iran.
This one-sided approach does little to foster peace. Instead, it encourages Israel’s hardline policies while ignoring the legitimate grievances of Palestinians and other actors in the region. What is needed is a more balanced stance—one that holds all parties accountable for their actions and works towards a long-term solution based on diplomacy and respect for human rights.
Internationally, Israel has also been shielded from meaningful accountability. Despite widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and repeated calls from the United Nations for a ceasefire, Israel continues to enjoy diplomatic and military support from Western powers, particularly the United States. This one-sided support has emboldened Israel’s leadership to pursue policies that undermine long-term stability in the region. It sends a message that Israel can act with impunity and limitthat it will not face significant consequences on the global stage.
What Lies Ahead?
Although a full-scale war between Iran and Israel seems unlikely now due to the immense costs and risks involved, the conflict shows no signs of abating. Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate any attack on its soil or any effort to arm the proxies, and they are adamant about taking military actions to prevent these outcomes. Iran, for its part, remains committed to its anti-Israel stance, preparing for a war while using its proxies to project power in the region.
The immediate future of the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to be marked by continued proxy warfare, missile strikes, and covert operations becoming more severe with each passing day. Iran’s economic struggles and regional isolation, however, limits its ability to sustain a prolonged war, but its leadership seems determined to maintain its influence in the Middle East. Israel, meanwhile, will likely continue to rely on its military strength and alliances with the U.S. and regional partners to keep Iran in check through displays of brute force, resulting in more casualties.
The international community remains on high alert as the conflict drags on, watching closely for signs of further escalation. Any miscalculation could spark a broader conflict, with devastating consequences for the region and the world.
In the end, the Israel-Iran conflict is a minor part of a broader power struggle in the Middle East, where shifting alliances, religious divisions, and geopolitical interests collide. While neither side appears willing to back down, both know that a full-scale war could be catastrophic. The conflict simmers just below the surface, with both nations locked in a dangerous game of brinkmanship that could explode at any moment.
