# Middle East on Edge: The Iran-Israel Shadow War Goes Public

> Decades of covert conflict between Iran and Israel have erupted into direct military exchanges, with drone and missile strikes, assassinations, and proxy battles across the region. The risk of full-scale war has never been higher—and the consequences would reshape the Middle East.

*Section: World — By Liam Chen (World Affairs Reporter) — Published March 15, 2025 — 10 min read*

Canonical URL: https://dailyjunction.org/world/middle-east-tensions-iran-israel-proxy-war
Tags: Middle East, Iran, Israel, conflict, geopolitics, nuclear, regional security

## Key takeaways

- Iran and Israel have exchanged direct military strikes for the first time, breaking the unwritten rule that kept their conflict in the shadows for decades
- Iran's nuclear programme is closer than ever to weapons capability, with enrichment at 60% and breakout time estimated at weeks rather than months
- Proxy conflicts in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Yemen (Houthis), and Gaza have intensified, drawing in regional powers and risking wider escalation
- The US has reinforced its military presence in the region but faces the dilemma of deterring Iran without being dragged into another Middle East war
- A direct Iran-Israel war would likely involve missile barrages, cyberattacks, and strikes on energy infrastructure, with global economic consequences

For decades, the conflict between Iran and Israel played out in the shadows: assassinations of nuclear scientists, cyberattacks on infrastructure, proxy battles in Lebanon and Syria, and covert operations that both sides acknowledged only through winks and nudges. That era is over. In the past year, Iran and Israel have exchanged direct military strikes—drones launched at Israeli territory, missiles fired at Iranian facilities, and open threats of retaliation. The shadow war has gone public, and the Middle East is closer to a full-scale regional conflict than at any time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The stakes are immense: Iran's nuclear programme is advancing, its proxies are more capable than ever, and both sides believe time is running out. The question is not whether this conflict will escalate further, but whether it can be contained before it explodes.

## The nuclear clock: Iran's breakout capability

At the heart of the crisis is Iran's nuclear programme. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration and European powers, was supposed to keep Iran at least a year away from having enough fissile material for a bomb. In exchange for limits on enrichment and intrusive inspections, Iran received sanctions relief. It was an imperfect deal, but it worked—until Donald Trump withdrew the US from it in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by breaching the deal's limits, and by 2025 it has accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity, far beyond any civilian need and just short of the 90% required for a weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, reported in February 2025 that Iran now has over 120 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium—enough, if further enriched, to produce material for three nuclear warheads. The IAEA's director general, Rafael Grossi, has warned that Iran's "breakout time"—the period needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb—has shrunk to a matter of weeks. Weaponisation (building a deliverable warhead) would take longer, but the technical barriers are not insurmountable for a country with Iran's scientific base.

Iran insists its programme is for peaceful energy and medical research, but its actions tell a different story. It has blocked IAEA inspectors from key sites, removed monitoring cameras, and developed advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium far faster than older models. Western intelligence agencies assess that Iran has not made a decision to build a bomb but has positioned itself to do so quickly if it chooses—a strategy known as "nuclear latency." For Israel, this is unacceptable. Israeli leaders, across the political spectrum, have said they will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and have repeatedly threatened military action to prevent it.

## The direct strikes: breaking the unwritten rules

The shift from shadow war to open conflict began in earnest in April 2024, when Iran launched over 300 drones and missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on Iran's consulate in Damascus that killed senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders. It was the first direct Iranian attack on Israeli territory, and though most projectiles were intercepted by Israeli air defences with US and British support, the psychological barrier had been broken. Israel responded days later with a strike on an air defence radar site in Iran, a carefully calibrated message: we can reach you, but we are not seeking full-scale war—yet.

Since then, the pattern has repeated. Israel has conducted airstrikes in Syria targeting Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah, sometimes killing Iranian personnel. Iran has used its proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen—to launch rockets and drones at Israel and US forces. In January 2025, a suspected Israeli cyberattack disabled parts of Iran's air defence network, and in February, an explosion at a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz—attributed to Israel by Iranian officials—set back Iran's programme by months.

Each side is testing the other's red lines. Israel wants to degrade Iran's nuclear and military capabilities without triggering a full-scale war. Iran wants to deter Israeli strikes and demonstrate that it can retaliate, but it also fears that a direct war with Israel (and likely the US) would be catastrophic. The result is a dangerous game of brinkmanship where miscalculation could lead to uncontrolled escalation.

## The proxy battlefield: Hezbollah, Houthis, and the axis of resistance

Iran's primary tool of influence is its network of proxy forces, collectively known as the "axis of resistance." The most powerful is Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia that fought Israel to a standstill in 2006 and now possesses an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles—more than most national armies. Hezbollah's arsenal includes precision-guided munitions capable of hitting Israeli infrastructure, and its fighters have gained experience in Syria's civil war. A full Hezbollah assault on Israel would overwhelm Israeli air defences and cause mass casualties, but it would also invite devastating Israeli retaliation that could destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and Hezbollah's political base.

In Yemen, the Houthi movement—backed by Iran with weapons, training, and intelligence—has launched drones and missiles at Israel and attacked commercial shipping in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade. The US and UK have conducted airstrikes on Houthi positions in response, but the attacks continue. The Houthis have little to lose and see the conflict as a way to boost their legitimacy and tie down Western forces.

In Iraq and Syria, Iranian-backed militias have attacked US bases dozens of times, killing American personnel and prompting US retaliatory strikes. These groups operate in a grey zone—not quite under direct Iranian command, but aligned with Tehran's interests and receiving Iranian support. They give Iran plausible deniability whilst allowing it to pressure the US and Israel without direct confrontation.

The proxy strategy has served Iran well, allowing it to project power across the region without risking its own territory. But it also creates escalation risks. If Hezbollah or the Houthis go too far, Israel or the US may strike Iran directly, and Iran may feel compelled to respond in kind. The proxies are both a tool of Iranian power and a potential trigger for war.

## The US dilemma: deterrence without entanglement

The United States is caught between conflicting imperatives. It wants to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from attacking Israel or US forces, but it does not want to be dragged into another Middle East war. The Biden administration has reinforced the US military presence in the region—deploying additional air defence systems, naval assets, and fighter squadrons—to signal resolve. It has also coordinated closely with Israel, providing intelligence and military support, and has conducted joint operations with the UK to strike Houthi targets in Yemen.

But the US is also wary of Israeli actions that could force its hand. If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran will likely retaliate against US forces in the region, and the US would face pressure to defend its ally. The Biden administration has reportedly urged Israel to avoid actions that would trigger a wider war, but Israel's calculus is different—it sees Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat and may decide that the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of war.

The UK's position is aligned with the US but more cautious. Britain has participated in operations to defend shipping in the Red Sea and has provided intelligence support to Israel, but it has no appetite for another ground war in the Middle East. The scars of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh, and British public opinion is deeply sceptical of military intervention. The UK's role is likely to be limited to air and naval support, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate—but if the US is drawn into a conflict, Britain will face intense pressure to stand with its closest ally.

## What a war would look like: scenarios and consequences

A full-scale Iran-Israel war would not resemble the conventional conflicts of the 20th century. Neither side has the capability or desire to invade and occupy the other's territory. Instead, the war would be fought through missile and drone strikes, cyberattacks, proxy forces, and special operations.

Iran would likely launch a massive barrage of ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and military bases, aiming to overwhelm air defences and cause mass casualties. Hezbollah would join in with rocket attacks from Lebanon, opening a second front. Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria would target US bases, and the Houthis would attack shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Iran might also attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil passes, by mining the waterway or attacking tankers.

Israel would respond with airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, military bases, and energy infrastructure. Israeli cyberattacks would target Iran's power grid, communications, and financial systems. The US would likely join in, striking Iranian missile sites and naval assets to protect its forces and allies. The conflict could last weeks or months, depending on how quickly both sides exhaust their munitions and whether external powers (Russia, China, Gulf states) intervene diplomatically.

The consequences would be catastrophic. Casualties could run into the tens of thousands. Oil prices would spike, potentially triggering a global recession. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal could be disrupted for months. Iran's economy, already crippled by sanctions, would collapse. Israel would suffer damage to its infrastructure and economy, and its relations with neighbouring countries could deteriorate. The broader Middle East could be destabilised, with sectarian violence, refugee flows, and the collapse of fragile states like Lebanon.

## The diplomatic off-ramp: does one exist?

Efforts to revive the JCPOA have gone nowhere. The Biden administration has said it is willing to return to the deal if Iran comes back into compliance, but Iran demands guarantees that a future US administration will not withdraw again—something no president can credibly promise. Talks mediated by the EU have stalled, and both sides have hardened their positions.

Some analysts propose a more modest interim deal: Iran freezes enrichment at current levels in exchange for limited sanctions relief, buying time for broader negotiations. But Iran has little incentive to accept—it has already paid the price of sanctions and is close to breakout capability. Israel, for its part, opposes any deal that leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact, arguing that it would merely delay the inevitable.

The most realistic hope is that both sides continue to calibrate their actions to avoid full-scale war, maintaining the current state of controlled escalation indefinitely. This is not a solution, but it may be the best available option. The alternative—war—would be worse for everyone, but that has never been enough to prevent wars from happening.

## The view from Britain: interests and influence

Britain's interests in the Middle East are significant but not existential. The UK relies on Gulf oil and gas, though less than in the past. British citizens and businesses operate across the region. The UK has defence relationships with Gulf states and a commitment to Israel's security. But Britain is no longer a dominant power in the Middle East, and its influence is limited.

The UK's role is to support diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation, to provide intelligence and limited military support to allies, and to prepare for the economic and humanitarian consequences of a wider conflict. Britain cannot stop a war if Israel and Iran are determined to fight one, but it can use its voice in Washington, Brussels, and regional capitals to argue for restraint.

The Middle East has been a graveyard of British ambitions before. The lesson of Iraq is that military intervention is easier to start than to end, and that the unintended consequences are always worse than expected. If the Iran-Israel conflict explodes, Britain's best contribution may be to stay out of the fighting and focus on the aftermath—humanitarian aid, refugee support, and the long, unglamorous work of reconstruction and diplomacy. The shadow war is over. What comes next will be fought in the open, and the costs will be borne by millions who have no say in the decisions that lead to war.

## Frequently asked questions

### Why are Iran and Israel enemies when they have no shared border?

The enmity is ideological and strategic, not territorial. After Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, the new regime adopted opposition to Israel as a core principle, viewing it as an illegitimate state and a tool of Western imperialism. Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme and support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as existential threats. Iran seeks regional hegemony and the end of Israeli statehood; Israel seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to degrade its proxy network. Geography is irrelevant—this is a struggle for influence and survival.

### How close is Iran to having nuclear weapons?

Very close, if it chooses to cross the threshold. Iran is enriching uranium to 60% purity, just short of the 90% needed for a weapon. The IAEA estimates Iran has enough 60%-enriched uranium that, if further enriched, could produce material for several bombs within weeks. However, weaponisation—building a deliverable warhead—would take longer, perhaps 1-2 years. Iran insists its programme is peaceful, but its lack of cooperation with inspectors and its development of advanced centrifuges suggest it is preserving the option to build a bomb quickly if it decides to.

### Could this escalate into a regional war involving the US and UK?

Yes, though neither the US nor UK wants that outcome. The US has mutual defence commitments to Israel and Gulf allies, and has said it would act to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz (through which 20% of global oil passes). If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear sites and Iran retaliates by attacking US bases or Gulf oil infrastructure, the US would likely be drawn in. The UK would face pressure to support its allies but would be cautious about another Middle East entanglement after Iraq and Afghanistan. The risk is not that anyone wants a regional war, but that escalation dynamics could produce one anyway.

## Sources

- [International Crisis Group — Iran-Israel tensions](https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran)
- [International Atomic Energy Agency — Iran nuclear monitoring](https://www.iaea.org/)
- [Chatham House — Middle East security analysis](https://www.chathamhouse.org/)
- [The Guardian — Middle East coverage](https://www.theguardian.com/world/middleeast)

---
Daily Junction — https://dailyjunction.org/world/middle-east-tensions-iran-israel-proxy-war