Key Players and Their Agendas

 

The unfolding conflict is shaped by a complex web of actors, each with distinct agendas, domestic pressures, and strategic calculations.

 

Iranian Leadership and Military Command

 

At the apex of Iran's power structure is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who serves as the commander-in-chief and holds ultimate authority over the Iranian armed forces. He is the architect of Iran's grand strategy, which has for decades been oriented around preserving his regime and exporting its revolutionary ideology. Khamenei has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, framing it as a "cancerous tumor" that should be removed from the region. In response to recent Israeli strikes, Khamenei rejected U.S. calls for surrender, warning that any military involvement by the Americans would cause "irreparable damage" to them.  

 

President Masoud Pezeshkian plays a role in diplomatic exchanges, though the president's involvement in military operations and warfighting is minimal within Iran's command structure.  

 

The Iranian military command has suffered significant losses due to Israeli "decapitation" strikes. Key figures killed include Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, IRGC Commander Hossein Salami, and Aerospace Chief Amir Ali Hajizadeh. General Ali Shadmani, appointed as the replacement for a killed predecessor, was also reportedly assassinated. New appointments have been made, including Abdolrahim Mousavi as the new Armed Forces Chief of Staff and Mohammad Pakpour as the new head of the IRGC. The IRGC is central to Iran's regional strategy, controlling its missile and drone arsenals and managing the vast "Axis of Resistance" network.  

 

Israeli Leadership and Military Command

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been the most vocal proponent of the view that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to Israel. He has publicly stated that the objective of Israel's ongoing military campaign is to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival" by dismantling Iran's nuclear program, destroying its ballistic missile production capabilities, and dismantling what he terms Iran's "terror axis". Netanyahu's government recently survived a no-confidence vote, and the war has temporarily rallied the opposition behind the national effort.  

 

Defense Minister Israel Katz has echoed the aggressive stance, publicly stating that "Tehran is burning" and suggesting that the strikes could lead to the collapse of the Iranian dictatorship.  

 

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), led by the Chief of the General Staff, Eyal Zamir, is a conscript military with robust ground and air forces, considered unmatched in the region.  

 

Regional Allies

 

Russia maintains a delicate balancing act, with strong ties to both Iran and Israel. While Moscow has condemned Israeli strikes as "categorically unacceptable" and warned of consequences for Israeli leadership, it has offered little beyond political support to Tehran. Russian President Vladimir Putin has actively engaged both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iranian President Pezeshkian, offering mediation to de-escalate the conflict. Despite a "comprehensive strategic partnership" treaty signed in January 2025, Russia and Iran's agreement does not include military alliance obligations in the event of war. Israel's actions and Iran's subsequent weakening pose challenges to Russia's strategic and economic interests in the Middle East.  

China has adopted a more cautious stance, supporting a diplomatic solution and expressing concerns about economic interests, particularly the potential disruption to oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing has condemned the Israeli campaign.  

 

Several Sunni Arab States, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, have normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords and share a mutual interest in countering Iranian influence. Publicly, they have called for de-escalation and restraint. The UAE, uniquely positioned with diplomatic relations with both Iran and Israel, is seen as a potential bridge for dialogue. Saudi Arabia, having restored diplomatic ties with Tehran in 2023, has condemned Israeli actions while signaling a pragmatic posture aimed at reducing regional tensions.  

 

Turkey's President Erdogan has engaged with U.S. President Trump, urging immediate action to prevent a regional disaster and offering to facilitate diplomatic efforts.  

 

The conflict highlights the complex and often contradictory alliances in the Middle East. While Russia has a strategic partnership with Iran, its simultaneous mediation efforts with Israel demonstrate a pragmatic desire to maintain influence with both sides and prevent a broader regional conflagration that could undermine its own interests. Similarly, Sunni Arab states, despite shared concerns with Israel about Iran, prioritize regional stability and avoid overt involvement, reflecting a delicate balancing act. This suggests that traditional blocs are less monolithic than they appear, and national interests often override ideological alignment in times of crisis.

 

International Mediators

 

The United Nations (UN), through Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, has unequivocally condemned the military escalation, urging maximum restraint from both sides and emphasizing the imperative for diplomacy and peace.  

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Director General Rafael Grossi, has confirmed Israeli strikes on the Natanz facility and has repeatedly warned that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of circumstances, due to the grave risks of radioactive releases. The IAEA recently censured Iran for non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations.  

 

Oman has played a role as a mediator for U.S.-Iran indirect nuclear talks, though the latest round was cancelled following Israeli strikes.  

 

The European Union (EU) has seen its foreign ministers convene to discuss the conflict, calling for de-escalation and reiterating the critical stance that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. However, the EU appears internally fractured on how to approach the conflict and has expressed a sense of being sidelined by Washington in recent crises. Notably, France has explicitly ruled out "regime change by military means" in Iran as a strategic mistake.  

 

The United States (U.S.) initially sought to distance itself from Israeli attacks, with President Donald Trump stating the U.S. "had nothing to do with the attack on Iran". However, Trump has since hinted at greater U.S. involvement, demanding Iran's "unconditional surrender" and warning of "irreparable damage" if the U.S. intervenes. The U.S. has strategically shifted military resources, including ships and aircraft, into the Middle East to protect Israel and has actively assisted in intercepting Iranian missiles. It is also reported that Trump previously vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Supreme Leader Khamenei.  

 

Both Netanyahu and Khamenei face significant domestic pressures. Netanyahu's government narrowly survived a no-confidence vote before the recent escalation, and the war has temporarily rallied opposition behind him. For Khamenei, the Israeli attacks, while intended to destabilize, may paradoxically strengthen his regime by fostering national unity against external aggression. This indicates that the leaders' actions are not solely driven by geopolitical strategy but also by internal political survival and legitimacy, which can influence the duration and intensity of the conflict.

 

Global Repercussions: A World on Edge

 

The direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel has ignited profound concerns across the globe, threatening to destabilize an already volatile region and trigger far-reaching economic and security consequences.

 

Impact on Middle East Stability

 

The most immediate and pressing concern is the significant increase in the risk of an all-out regional war. Experts warn of "extremely negative consequences" that could engulf the entire Middle East. Israel's aggressive actions have already begun to reshape regional power dynamics, weakening Iran's influence and potentially emboldening its adversaries. However, this shift could also lead to a more fractured and competitive landscape, rather than a more stable one. The humanitarian toll is a grave concern; prolonged fighting risks mass displacement and exacerbates human misery in a region already grappling with the fallout of civil wars and instability.  

 

A critical and paradoxical implication is the risk of nuclear proliferation. While Israel's primary objective is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, military strikes alone, without a complementary diplomatic strategy, could inadvertently incentivize Tehran to accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is already enriching uranium to 60%, a short technical step away from weapons-grade levels. This raises the alarming specter of a nuclearized Middle East, a scenario with catastrophic global implications.  

 

Implications for the U.S.

 

The United States finds itself in a precarious position. Israel is increasingly pressuring the U.S. to join its war efforts, potentially for direct strikes on deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities like Fordow, which only the U.S. possesses the "bunker busting capabilities" to destroy effectively. Such involvement would inevitably drain U.S. resources and divert strategic attention from other critical priorities, such as managing its relationship with China and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.  

 

The U.S. has publicly distanced itself from Israel's offensive strikes, stating it had "nothing to do with the attack on Iran". However, its continued military and diplomatic support for Israel complicates its standing, particularly with Arab allies who have called for de-escalation. There are concerns that this could undermine trust in future U.S. diplomatic outreach, especially given that the Israeli strikes occurred while U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were reportedly underway. Furthermore, Iran has explicitly warned of "irreparable damage" if the U.S. intervenes militarily and has prepared to target U.S. forces in Iraq and other Arab countries in retaliation. The U.S. has already shifted military resources to the region and assisted in intercepting Iranian missiles to protect Israel.  

 

Implications for Europe

 

For Europe, the conflict carries significant implications for transatlantic strategy, potentially reshaping debates about defense burden-sharing and priorities beyond conventional contingencies within Europe itself. Europe's heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil makes energy security a paramount concern; any disruption of supplies, especially from the Strait of Hormuz, would have severe economic consequences across the continent. A sudden collapse of the Iranian regime, while not explicitly sought by all European powers, could also trigger a massive influx of refugees, posing significant humanitarian and logistical challenges for neighboring countries and Europe. The European Union finds itself in a challenging diplomatic position, internally fractured and feeling marginalized by Washington, which complicates its ability to prevent further escalation despite its central role in past nuclear deal negotiations. France, notably, has explicitly ruled out "regime change by military means" in Iran as a strategic mistake.  

 

Implications for Global Security

 

The interconnectedness of global security and economics is starkly highlighted by this conflict. Oil prices surged immediately after Israeli strikes, and a wider war, particularly if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz—through which 20-30% of global oil trade passes—would cause significant and prolonged price increases, stoking global inflation and impacting consumers and businesses worldwide. This demonstrates that the conflict is not merely a regional issue but a direct threat to global economic stability.  

 

Disruption to global trade routes is another major concern. Shipping costs were already rising due to rerouting around the Red Sea following Houthi attacks. A widening conflict would further drive up these costs and hinder efforts to normalize trade through vital maritime arteries, impacting global supply chains.  

 

The conflict has also fully spilled over into cyberspace, with both state-backed and hacktivist groups targeting critical infrastructure globally. U.S. critical infrastructure, including water systems, has already been identified as a potential target for Iranian cyber capabilities. This raises the prospect of cyberattacks becoming more destructive and widespread.  

 

Ultimately, the conflict risks opening the door to widespread chaos across the Middle East, including the rise of extremist militias and a breakdown in state authority, further destabilizing an already fragile region.  

Israel's primary stated objective is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, the effectiveness of such "counterproliferation strikes" is historically mixed. There is a significant risk that instead of deterring, these strikes could harden Iran's resolve and accelerate its nuclear program. If Iran perceives its conventional deterrence and proxy network to be insufficient for regime survival, a nuclear deterrent might become an even more attractive option. This creates a dangerous feedback loop, where attempts to prevent  proliferation could inadvertently trigger it, leading to a nuclearized Middle East.

 

Voices from the Ground: Perspectives on the Conflict

 

The escalating conflict resonates deeply within both Iranian and Israeli societies, eliciting complex and often contradictory responses, while international bodies and human rights organizations voice urgent concerns for civilian protection and adherence to international law.

 

Iranian Public Opinion

 

Despite decades of internal criticism and discontent with their government, many Iranians have expressed anger over what they perceive as a foreign assault on national sovereignty. This reaction is rooted in a collective memory of external intervention, stretching from the CIA-backed 1953 coup to the devastating Iran-Iraq War, which has reactivated a "deeply embedded defensive reflex" against foreign aggression. This has led to a noticeable shift in public discourse, moving from demands for political reform towards a focus on national defense.  

 

However, this nationalistic rallying coexists with profound fear and helplessness among civilians in Tehran and other targeted cities, who face bombings with little government guidance on how to protect themselves. While Israeli messaging has attempted to separate the IRGC from the Iranian nation, portraying the Revolutionary Guard as oppressors rather than national defenders, this narrative appears to be countered by a rallying effect, with some public figures, even former critics of the regime, voicing support for Iran's armed forces. This suggests that a military strategy aimed at regime change via external pressure might inadvertently strengthen the regime's internal legitimacy by tapping into a deep-seated historical memory of foreign intervention and fostering a "defensive reflex." This complicates any external strategy aimed at regime change.  

 

 

Israeli Public Opinion

 

In Israel, a palpable sense of fear and uncertainty pervades the population, particularly in major cities like Tel Aviv. Israelis, accustomed to shorter conflicts, are now facing attacks that last significantly longer, requiring prolonged stays in bomb shelters.  

 

Among Jewish Israelis, there is broad support for the military strikes against Iran. A recent survey revealed that 83% of Jewish Israelis support the military action, with nearly half (46%) backing strikes even without U.S. support. There is a widespread perception that "neutralizing Iran and its proxies" is a critical and necessary objective for national security. Many express gratitude for Israel's early warning systems and robust shelter infrastructure, which have mitigated casualties.  

 

In stark contrast, Arab Israelis overwhelmingly oppose the military campaign. The same survey indicated that 73% of Arab Israelis favor a diplomatic solution, with only 12% supporting military action. They express high levels of fear and believe the conflict will deepen societal divisions within Israel. This highlights how the external conflict with Iran, rather than unifying all segments of Israeli society, exacerbates existing internal fissures, particularly along ethnic and political lines. This internal dynamic could have significant implications for Israel's domestic stability and long-term policy choices.  

 

International Bodies and Human Rights Organizations

 

International bodies and human rights organizations have consistently emphasized the urgent need to protect civilians and uphold international law amidst the escalating hostilities.

 

The UN Secretary-General has condemned the military escalation from both sides and repeatedly urged maximum restraint, calling for diplomacy and peace to prevail.  

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi has issued strong warnings that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of circumstances, due to the severe risks of radioactive releases and their grave consequences for people and the environment.  

 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called for concrete actions from the international community, including an arms embargo on Israel and targeted sanctions against officials responsible for abuses. HRW views some Israeli actions as "unlawful and disproportionate aggression," particularly in the context of the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.  

 

Amnesty International has urged both Israeli and Iranian authorities to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians, condemning what it describes as reckless military action. Amnesty has criticized statements from the U.S. and G7 for failing to adequately recognize the catastrophic impact on civilians and warns against using the escalation to divert attention from Israel's ongoing actions in Gaza. The organization has also highlighted concerns over internet restrictions and arrests of journalists and dissidents within Iran during the conflict.  

 

What Comes Next? Scenarios and Questions

 

The direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel has thrust the Middle East into uncharted and perilous territory. The trajectory of this conflict remains highly uncertain, with several possible scenarios and critical questions that will shape the region's future and global security.

 

Possible Scenarios

 

• De-escalation and Return to Diplomacy: This is the fervent hope of many international actors, including the UN, EU, and Russia. However, the path to diplomacy is fraught with challenges. The recent cancellation of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and Iran's firm stance of refusing to negotiate "while under attack" create significant hurdles. The U.S. demand for Iran's "unconditional surrender" further complicates any immediate diplomatic breakthroughs.  

 

• Prolonged, Controlled Conflict: This scenario envisions a continuation of tit-for-tat strikes, potentially with periods of reduced intensity, where both sides aim to degrade the other's capabilities without triggering an all-out regional war. Israel might persist with its "decapitation campaign" against Iranian military leadership and continued strikes on nuclear sites, seeking to impose long-term setbacks. Iran, in turn, would likely continue its missile and drone attacks, alongside escalating cyber operations, as a means of retaliation and deterrence.  

 

• Wider Regional War: This remains the most catastrophic scenario. It could involve direct U.S. military intervention, particularly if Israel presses for strikes on deeply buried facilities like Fordow that require U.S. "bunker busting" capabilities. Active involvement of Iran's remaining proxies, such as the Houthis or Iraqi militias, could also expand the conflict. Attacks on Gulf Arab oil infrastructure, a tactic Iran has employed in the past, could trigger massive economic disruption and humanitarian crises on a global scale.

 

Key Questions to Watch

 

The path ahead is fraught with uncertainty, and several critical questions will determine the conflict's trajectory:

 

• Iran's Nuclear Program: How quickly can Iran reconstitute its nuclear program, especially at underground facilities like Fordow, if the current strikes cease? Will Israel's aggressive actions, intended to prevent proliferation, inadvertently push Iran to accelerate its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, or will they force a diplomatic concession?. Israel's aggressive military campaign aims to deter Iran and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the effectiveness of such "counterproliferation strikes" is historically mixed. There is a significant risk that instead of deterring, these strikes could harden Iran's resolve and accelerate its nuclear program. This highlights a fundamental dilemma: military action might achieve short-term setbacks but could inadvertently push Iran closer to its ultimate goal, creating a more dangerous long-term scenario.  

 

• Resilience of Proxy Network: Can Iran rebuild its weakened "Axis of Resistance," particularly Hezbollah and Hamas, to restore its regional deterrence capabilities? The significant blows dealt to these groups raise questions about Iran's ability to project power through non-state actors in the same way it has for decades.

 

• U.S. Role: Will the U.S. maintain its current posture of supporting Israel's defense while disavowing direct involvement in offensive strikes, or will it be drawn into a more active military role? How will the U.S. balance its unwavering support for Israel with its broader strategic interests and relationships in the Middle East and globally, especially given the calls for de-escalation from Arab allies?.  

 

• Internal Stability of Regimes: Can the Israeli and Iranian leaderships sustain domestic support amidst prolonged conflict and mounting casualties? Will the Israeli strikes inadvertently strengthen the Iranian regime by fostering national unity against external aggression, or will they eventually destabilize it?.

 

• Global Economic Impact: How will the conflict affect global oil prices, shipping routes, and inflation in the long term? Will there be sustained disruption to energy supplies and trade, particularly if key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz are threatened?.  

 

• Cyber Warfare Escalation: Will cyberattacks become more destructive and widespread, targeting critical infrastructure beyond the immediate region, potentially drawing in more global actors?.

 

Despite the apparent "control" in the initial phases of direct confrontation, the conflict remains highly volatile and prone to unpredictable escalation. The fall of the Assad regime and the weakening of Hezbollah were significant developments, but the continued Houthi attacks and the potential for Iraqi militias to engage U.S.

 

forces demonstrate that the regional dynamics are still fluid and interconnected. A miscalculation, a more damaging strike, or an unexpected move by a proxy could quickly trigger an "all-out war" that no party truly desires, underscoring the fragility of the current "guardrails." The world watches, holding its breath, as the crucible of conflict in the Middle East continues to burn.