Why ongoing Iran-Israel conflict is more perilous than ever

By Nizamuddin Siddiqui

THE WORLDVIEW

June 15, 2025

The war between Iran and Israel is not merely a military confrontation — it is an existential struggle for survival and credibility for the leaders of both nations. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous.

THE ongoing war between Iran and Israel is the ultimate conflict for the top leaders of the two nations. For both Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this conflict represents a denouement of sorts — one that could redefine their legacies or undo their authority altogether.

In Netanyahu’s case, the stakes are deeply personal and legal. Facing a serious corruption trial that has already spanned years, the embattled Israeli leader knows full well that a prolonged war diverts public and judicial scrutiny. The longer the conflict with Iran — and concurrently, the grinding war in Gaza — drags on, the longer Netanyahu can remain insulated from the courtroom.

Although his popularity has somewhat rebounded since the brutal 7th October, 2023 attacks by Hamas, significant criticism remains — particularly from families of those kidnapped during that assault who feel the government has failed to prioritise their return.

The existential weight of the war is equally — if not more — heavy on the shoulders of Ayatollah Khamenei. The Supreme Leader of Iran, now in his mid-80s, has long sought to turn the Islamic Republic into a regional power capable of standing up to Israel and the West. To now be seen as failing in a high-stakes conflict against its principal enemy would be a devastating blow — one that could damage the regime’s legitimacy at home and abroad.

This is what makes the present escalation so different from previous proxy conflicts and limited skirmishes. Today, Israel and Iran are directly exchanging waves of missiles, marking a shift from shadow war to open confrontation. And the early results are sobering for Tehran.

Iran has suffered greater losses, both in terms of military infrastructure and personnel. Israeli strikes have successfully targeted Iranian military bases, IRGC facilities in Syria, and logistical networks used to support regional proxies. While Iranian missiles have reached Israeli territory, the impact has been blunted by the sheer effectiveness of Israel’s multi-layered air defence system. Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow have collectively intercepted close to 80 per cent of incoming projectiles. This technological shield is not only protecting Israeli lives but also severely limiting Iran’s ability to inflict strategic damage.

Iran, meanwhile, is fighting this war at a disadvantage from nearly every angle. It is engaged in a long-distance battle, projecting force across hundreds of kilometres — a logistical and tactical challenge that Israel is far more adept at managing, thanks to superior air power, intelligence capabilities, and coordination with regional partners. Moreover, while Israel enjoys unwavering military and diplomatic backing from the United States, Iran stands isolated. Even traditional allies such as Russia and China have so far refrained from offering Tehran any tangible military assistance in the conflict.

Despite US President Donald Trump’s strained relationship with Netanyahu, Israeli leaders know that the United States — regardless of who occupies the White House — will not abandon them. This consistency in American support is a cornerstone of Israeli defence policy. It also serves as a warning to Iran: the more it escalates, the more it risks triggering a broader American intervention.

This dynamic extends to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both the US and Israel have repeatedly acted to degrade Tehran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons — through sanctions, sabotage, and airstrikes. The spectre of a fully nuclear-capable Iran is one Israel refuses to tolerate. Should the ongoing Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities succeed in achieving its objectives, the consequences for the Islamic Republic would be existential. Crippling of Iran’s nuclear programme could leave Tehran permanently weakened — stripped not only of deterrence but of regional influence as well.

That, perhaps, is the greatest danger of this war: its finality. For Iran, this may be the last major opportunity to assert itself as a credible counterweight to Israeli power in the Middle East. If it loses decisively — either militarily, diplomatically, or both — the repercussions will be far-reaching. A weakened Iran will find it harder to maintain its proxy networks in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Most crucially, the only state openly challenging Israel in military terms could be silenced — perhaps for a long time, if not permanently.

That is why Iran should not be left alone. While few nations may be willing to openly side with Tehran, some may see it in their strategic interest to offer covert or diplomatic support — not necessarily out of sympathy, but to preserve a balance of power in the region. Because if Iran falls too far, the Middle East could be left with one unchallenged military hegemon, and a future of even more destabilising unilateral action.

For all those reasons, this is not just another Middle East war. It is a desperate and dangerous confrontation between two countries with everything to lose. And in such wars, restraint becomes a rare and fleeting commodity.