Israel–Iran conflict: Proxy to open engagement
This article is authored by Ananya Raj Kakoti, scholar, international relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
The long-standing strategic rivalry between Israel and Iran has escalated significantly in recent weeks. What was once defined by covert operations and proxy engagements has shifted into direct military confrontation. This development marks a turning point in the regional security dynamics of West Asia, with implications extending beyond the immediate actors involved.
Tensions between Israel and Iran have existed for decades, largely driven by Iran's support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Over the years, both countries have engaged in cyber operations, targeted killings, and sabotage, often through intermediaries. Iran's nuclear programme and Israel's policy of pre-emptive action have remained central to this antagonism.
The situation evolved after the 2018 US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had previously set limits on Iran’s nuclear development. Since then, Iran has increased uranium enrichment, while Israel has intensified intelligence and sabotage efforts.
In June 2025, Israel launched a series of airstrikes on Iranian targets, including military infrastructure and nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and near Tehran. These operations, reportedly involving F-35 fighter jets and drones, were aimed at degrading Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities.
Iran responded with ballistic missile and drone strikes targeting military and infrastructure sites in Israel. Over 150 missiles and more than 100 drones were launched. Israeli air defence systems intercepted a majority of these threats, minimising casualties and infrastructure damage.
The conflict has highlighted advanced military technologies on both sides. Israel’s defence relied on a multi-layered system. The Iron Dome is for short-range rocket and drone threats. The David’s Sling is used for mid-range missiles. While Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 are used for long-range ballistic missile interception.
These systems, supported by real-time intelligence and regional coordination, reportedly neutralised approximately 99% of the incoming projectiles.
Iran deployed a variety of offensive assets, including the Shahed-series drones, Fateh and Khaibar ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. The Shahed drones are designed for long-range strikes with loitering capabilities. Ballistic missile ranges vary, with some models capable of reaching over 2,000 kilometres. Cruise missiles such as the Soumar and Hoveyzeh are reported to have high accuracy.
In terms of defence, Iran has developed systems such as the Bavar-373, an indigenous long-range air defence system, and the Khordad-15, which is capable of detecting and engaging multiple aerial targets. Iran also employs electronic warfare tactics, including radar jamming and signal interference. Additionally, Iranian military strategy includes decentralisation of assets and mobile launch platforms to complicate enemy targeting.
The US later participated in joint operations with Israel, striking Iranian facilities linked to its nuclear programme. These operations included the use of bunker-busting ordnance such as the GBU-57, designed for hardened underground targets.
Reports have also indicated limited use of cluster munitions in areas of military concentration. Cluster bombs, which disperse multiple submunitions over a wide area, are controversial due to the risk of unexploded ordnance and potential impact on civilian populations. While neither Israel, Iran, nor the US are parties to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, the use of such weapons continues to draw scrutiny under international humanitarian law, particularly regarding the principles of distinction and proportionality.
Both parties have justified their actions under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which permits the right to self-defence in the event of an armed attack. The legality of pre-emptive self-defence, while not universally accepted, has been invoked in past international incidents involving comparable threats.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the development of nuclear weapons. While Iran maintains its programme is peaceful, recent developments have raised concerns about enrichment levels. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities.
The use of weapons such as bunker busters, drones, and advanced missile defence systems is not inherently prohibited under international law. However, their use is subject to principles of proportionality and distinction under the Law of Armed Conflict. The reported use of cluster munitions has added to the legal and humanitarian considerations, particularly in densely populated or dual-use zones. Civilian casualties and infrastructure damage are being monitored by international agencies, though independent verification remains limited.
The escalation has broader implications. US involvement signals strategic alignment with Israel’s security concerns. European nations have called for de-escalation and have urged both sides to return to diplomatic channels.
Regional actors are closely observing the situation, with concerns about potential disruptions to energy trade routes and broader instability. Iran has made statements regarding the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil supply, although no action has yet been taken in that direction.
The United States, while directly involved in select operations, has also indicated a preference for limiting escalation. U.S. officials have reiterated the need to maintain open channels with regional actors and avoid a prolonged or expanded conflict.
The recent developments mark a shift in the nature of the Israel–Iran conflict from indirect engagement to direct confrontation. Advanced military technology and coordinated defence systems have played a key role in the operational dynamics. While both nations cite self-defence under international law, the situation underscores the limits of deterrence and the increasing complexity of modern conflict.
As of now, diplomatic efforts have not yielded any ceasefire or de-escalation agreement. The continuation of hostilities will likely depend on both military calculations and political decisions in the coming weeks. Monitoring compliance with international humanitarian law and engaging in strategic dialogue will be essential to preventing further regional destabilisation.
This article is authored by Ananya Raj Kakoti, scholar, international relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
HT App & Website
