The Shadow War: Unpacking The Israel-Iran Conflict & US Role

Prof. Waino Jacobi PhD 19 Jun 2025

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is perpetually on edge, and few flashpoints carry as much potential for widespread devastation as the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, often referred to as the war in Iran by observers. This article delves into the recent developments, the underlying causes, and the complex web of international diplomacy and military posturing that defines this precarious situation, drawing insights directly from recent reports and expert observations.

Understanding the intricacies of this conflict is not merely an academic exercise; it's crucial for comprehending global stability, energy markets, and the humanitarian implications for millions. From sudden military strikes to frantic diplomatic efforts and the looming shadow of nuclear proliferation, the potential for a full-scale war in Iran remains a grave concern for the international community.

The Spark: Israel's Strikes and Iran's Response
The Nuclear Dimension: At the Heart of the Conflict
A Deepening Crisis: The Humanitarian Toll
The US Stance: From Denial to Potential Involvement
- A Catastrophe Averted or Embraced?
- Calls for Direct US Intervention
Diplomatic Efforts: A Fragile Lifeline
Strategic Implications and Regional Dynamics
- Historical Echoes: Lessons from Past Conflicts
- The Proxy Game and Regional Stability
The Stakes: What a Full-Scale War Means
Navigating the Future: Pathways to De-escalation

The Spark: Israel's Strikes and Iran's Response

The recent escalation that has brought the region to the brink of a full-blown war in Iran began with decisive military actions. On the evening of June 12, Israel launched a series of major strikes against Iran, marking a significant escalation in their long-standing covert conflict. These were not mere symbolic attacks; the targets included critical Iranian nuclear facilities, key missile sites, and multiple senior military and political officials, indicating a clear intent to degrade Iran's strategic capabilities and leadership. Following these strikes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a televised speech, declared success, signaling a confident posture in the face of mounting regional tensions.

However, the response from Tehran was swift and robust. Iran unleashed a barrage of missile strikes on Israeli targets, demonstrating its capacity for retaliation and its resolve not to be deterred. The initial hours of this intense exchange painted a grim picture: in the first 48 hours of the war, Iran launched around 300 missiles and 150 drones towards Israel. This massive retaliatory assault underscored the immediate and severe risks of direct military confrontation between the two powers, pushing the concept of a "shadow war" into overt, dangerous territory.

The Nuclear Dimension: At the Heart of the Conflict

Central to the escalating tensions and the very premise of a potential war in Iran is the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Israel has consistently stated that its primary motivation for launching these strikes was to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. This concern has been a driving force behind Israeli policy for years, particularly after talks between the United States and Iran over a diplomatic resolution had made little visible progress over two months but were still ongoing. The lack of a clear diplomatic breakthrough, from Israel's perspective, necessitated a more direct approach to neutralize what it perceives as an existential threat.

Adding to the complexity, Iran has declared its unwavering commitment to its nuclear activities, stating it will keep enriching uranium. This declaration directly contradicts international efforts to curb its program and fuels Israeli fears. A significant challenge for any military intervention, particularly for Israel acting alone, is the nature of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Israel lacks the bunker buster bombs and large bomber aircraft needed to destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment site, which is built into a mountain and deep underground, making it highly resistant to conventional aerial assaults. This technical challenge highlights the limitations of military options and underscores why the nuclear question remains such a thorny issue, driving the potential for a larger, more devastating war in Iran.

A Deepening Crisis: The Humanitarian Toll

Beyond the geopolitical chess game and military exchanges, the human cost of escalating conflict, even the threat of a full-blown war in Iran, is immediate and devastating. The initial strikes and retaliations had a profound and visible impact on civilian populations. The war has also sparked an exodus from Iran's capital Tehran, with video showing thousands of vehicles at a near standstill on primary exit routes. This imagery paints a stark picture of widespread panic and the desperate attempts of ordinary citizens to escape the perceived epicentre of the conflict.

Those frantic escape bids were fueled by the palpable fear of further escalation and the immediate danger posed by missile strikes and potential ground incursions. The rapid movement of such a large number of people not only creates a humanitarian crisis in terms of displacement and basic needs but also disrupts essential services and infrastructure. The sight of a major capital emptying out serves as a chilling reminder that while the conflict may be framed in terms of strategic objectives and national security, its most profound and immediate consequences are borne by the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. This mass movement underscores the urgency of de-escalation and the immense humanitarian stakes involved in any potential expansion of the war in Iran.

The US Stance: From Denial to Potential Involvement

The role of the United States in the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran is complex and evolving, with its stance shifting significantly as the situation deteriorates. Initially, after denying involvement in Israel's first strikes on strategic sites across Iran, the U.S. has adopted a tougher tone. This shift suggests a growing alignment with Israel's aggressive posture or at least a recognition of the need to project strength in the face of Iranian actions.

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions have been particularly scrutinized. He isn’t ruling out greater U.S. involvement in Israel’s war on Iran, even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the campaign’s outcome could be regime change. This statement from Netanyahu highlights the maximalist goals some in Israel might harbor, which could draw the U.S. into a much larger conflict. While President Trump has previously stated there is little he could do to stop the Israeli attacks, his more recent comments and the actions since Israel struck Iran last week suggest a deeper, more active engagement. Trump threatened Iran’s supreme leader and referred to Israel’s war efforts using the word “we” — clear signs that the U.S. is increasingly aligning its rhetoric and potentially its policy with Israel's military campaign, moving beyond mere diplomatic support to a more direct, albeit undeclared, partnership in the war in Iran.

A Catastrophe Averted or Embraced?

The prospect of direct U.S. military involvement in a war with Iran carries immense implications, both domestically and internationally. Many analysts and former officials warn that such a conflict would be a catastrophe, representing the culminating failure of decades of regional overreach by the United States. This potential outcome stands in stark contrast to the very sort of policy that Mr. Trump has long railed against, having campaigned on a platform of ending "endless wars" and reducing American military entanglements abroad. A full-scale war in Iran would inevitably draw the U.S. into another protracted and costly conflict in the Middle East, with unpredictable consequences for global stability and the American economy.

Calls for Direct US Intervention

Despite the potential pitfalls, there are strong voices within Israel advocating for direct U.S. military support. Israel has asked the Trump administration over the past 48 hours to join the war with Iran in order to eliminate its nuclear program, according to two Israeli officials. This request underscores Israel's belief that its own capabilities might not be sufficient to achieve its objectives, particularly concerning deeply buried nuclear facilities like Fordow. The stakes are further heightened by Iran's own threats: before the Israeli strikes, Iran threatened to attack U.S. facilities in the Middle East—attacks that, if they occurred, would provide a direct casus belli for American intervention, dramatically escalating the conflict into a broader regional war involving the United States.

Diplomatic Efforts: A Fragile Lifeline

Amidst the escalating military exchanges and heightened rhetoric, diplomatic channels remain a fragile but crucial lifeline to prevent a full-blown war in Iran. The international community, particularly European powers, has been actively engaged in efforts to de-escalate the situation. An official with the Iranian presidency conveyed to CNN that diplomacy with Iran can “easily” be started again if US President Donald Trump orders Israel’s leadership to stop striking the country. This statement places a significant onus on Washington and suggests that a path to de-escalation hinges on U.S. influence over its key ally, Israel.

Recognizing the urgency, a European diplomatic effort to rein in the conflict has been underway. This has included high-level meetings aimed at finding a peaceful resolution. Specifically, Iran, UK, Germany, France, and the EU foreign policy chief met in a bid to avoid further escalation between Israel and Iran. These multilateral discussions highlight the widespread international concern about the potential for the conflict to spiral out of control, emphasizing that a peaceful resolution, however difficult, is paramount to regional and global stability. The success of these diplomatic endeavors remains uncertain, but they represent the persistent hope that dialogue can ultimately prevail over military confrontation and avert a catastrophic war in Iran.

Strategic Implications and Regional Dynamics

The recent Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was, as Northeastern University observers noted, both an opportunity and “a massive gamble” that set in motion a war with profound consequences for both nations. The opportunity arose from the potential to sideline Iran’s proxies, weakening its regional influence. However, the gamble lies in the unpredictable nature of the conflict and its potential to ignite a broader regional conflagration. The outbreak of war between Israel, a close U.S. ally, and Iran, a significant regional power, immediately reshapes the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, drawing in various actors and alliances.

Israel’s staying power in such a conflict is partly a question of defending the homeland, a deeply ingrained national imperative that fuels its military resolve. The nation's strategic doctrine prioritizes preemptive action and robust defense, especially against threats perceived to be existential. This commitment to self-defense underscores the intensity and potential longevity of any direct conflict. The intertwining of national security with the very existence of the state means that Israel is prepared for a prolonged struggle, even if it means an extended war in Iran.

Historical Echoes: Lessons from Past Conflicts

To understand the potential trajectory of a war in Iran, it's useful to look at historical precedents. The most significant modern conflict involving Iran was the Iran-Iraq War. Active hostilities began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran and lasted for nearly eight years, until the acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 by both sides. That war, one of the longest and deadliest conventional wars of the 20th century, resulted in massive casualties, economic devastation, and a stalemate, demonstrating the immense human and material cost of protracted regional conflicts. While the current context is different, the historical memory of such a devastating war undoubtedly influences strategic thinking in Tehran and beyond, highlighting the perils of miscalculation and the challenges of achieving decisive victory.

The Proxy Game and Regional Stability

Iran's regional influence is largely exerted through a network of proxy groups, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to various militias in Iraq and Yemen. The idea that Israel's initial strikes offered an "opportunity" to sideline Iran's proxies suggests a strategic aim to diminish Tehran's ability to project power indirectly. However, the effectiveness of such a strategy is debatable, as these proxies are often deeply entrenched and operate with a degree of autonomy. A full-scale war in Iran could either cripple these networks or, conversely, galvanize them into more aggressive action against Israel and U.S. interests, further destabilizing an already volatile region. The complex interplay between direct state-on-state conflict and proxy warfare means that the ramifications of any war in Iran would extend far beyond the immediate battlefields, potentially igniting multiple fronts across the Middle East.

The Stakes: What a Full-Scale War Means

The prospect of a full-scale war in Iran represents a crisis of monumental proportions, with far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond the immediate combatants. The humanitarian toll would be catastrophic, as evidenced by the mass exodus from Tehran already observed. Millions could be displaced, leading to an unprecedented refugee crisis in the region and potentially overwhelming international aid efforts. Civilian casualties would undoubtedly mount, and critical infrastructure, including hospitals, power grids, and water supplies, would be severely damaged, plunging entire populations into hardship.

Economically, a major conflict involving a key oil producer like Iran would send shockwaves through global markets. Oil prices would skyrocket, triggering inflation and potentially leading to a global recession. Shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, vital for international trade, would be severely disrupted, impacting supply chains worldwide. The financial cost of such a war, both for the nations involved and for the global economy, would be staggering, diverting resources from development and stability initiatives.

Regionally, the conflict would inevitably draw in other actors, potentially leading to a multi-front war. Neighboring countries, already grappling with their own internal challenges, could face spillover violence, an influx of refugees, and heightened internal divisions. The delicate balance of power in the Middle East would be shattered, paving the way for new alliances and rivalries, and potentially empowering extremist groups in the ensuing chaos. For the international community, a war in Iran would present an immense diplomatic challenge, testing the limits of international law and the capacity of global institutions to mediate and mitigate conflict.

Navigating the Future: Pathways to De-escalation

Given the immense stakes, the imperative to find pathways to de-escalation for the war in Iran is paramount. Diplomatic efforts, though often slow and frustrating, remain the most viable option for preventing further bloodshed. This includes continued engagement from European powers, who have consistently advocated for a negotiated settlement, and potentially a renewed push for a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear program that satisfies all parties' security concerns.

The role of the United States, particularly its influence over Israel, is critical. The Iranian presidency's assertion that diplomacy can easily restart if President Trump orders a halt to Israeli strikes highlights a potential leverage point. While complex, a coordinated international approach that combines firm deterrence with genuine offers of dialogue could create an off-ramp from the current trajectory. This would require a willingness from all sides to make concessions, rebuild trust, and commit to a long-term strategy of regional stability rather than short-term military gains. The path forward is fraught with challenges, but the alternative—a full-scale war in Iran—is a scenario too grim to contemplate, demanding every effort to find a peaceful resolution.

The situation between Israel and Iran, with the U.S. hovering in the background, is a stark reminder of the fragile peace in the Middle East. From the initial Israeli strikes and Iran's swift retaliation to the humanitarian exodus from Tehran and the ongoing nuclear standoff, every development underscores the urgent need for de-escalation. The potential for a full-blown war in Iran, with its catastrophic human and economic costs, demands the utmost attention from global leaders and a renewed commitment to diplomacy. It is only through sustained dialogue, strategic restraint, and a genuine desire for peace that the region can hope to avert a wider conflict and build a more stable future.

What are your thoughts on the international community's role in preventing a full-scale war in Iran? Share your perspectives in the comments below, or explore our other articles on Middle Eastern geopolitics for more insights.

Remembering the First Gulf War - Progressive.org

War Concept. Military fighting scene on war sky background, Soldiers

Why Fight Wars at All? • The Havok Journal

HeadlineSphere

The Shadow War: Unpacking The Israel-Iran Conflict & US Role

Table of Contents