Geo-strategic flux and Iran-Israel conflict

Once a war begins and hostilities and the hard military options pan out, the other avenues of pursuing interests, ensuring stability while maintaining an order based on principles remains active. Wars, at least immediately, do not bring peace. Once war ensues, a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities is the best bet and the immediate goal.

Conflict and war in middle-east

Iran-Israel do not share a border but their broader and immediate geo-strategic interests and positions cast them as arch enemies and they had exchanged fire twice last year. It has been brewing for years, but the events of Friday the thirteenth were shocking and caught most by surprise, except of course Israel. A fragile and temporary ceasefire has somehow taken hold. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war lasted for 6 days and 1973 for 19 days, this round of conflict between Israel and Iran for 12 days.

Emboldened by the success Israel has with Hezbollah and ongoing Gaza blockade,(tacit acceptance by world) Israel initiated a planned and calculated attack against Iran's military assets and nuclear capability. The momentum and planning advantages were with Israel and it involved what military strategists label as decapitation strikes against an opponent. Going by the results Israel achieved on the first day, to many, it did appear that the war would end within a couple of days!

Preemptive is the tactical word for aggression and is unlike preventive measures that lead to wars with which the United Nations is tasked with. Israel reported that 200 aircraft attacked Iran on the first day and aircraft and drones ceaselessly attacked Iran on all days of conflict. This offensive included internal sabotage, espionage and was smeared with psy-ops geared towards regime change from the beginning. However, Iran regrouped and rebounded quickly and retaliated with a force which has won them many admirers. Iran usually receives a disproportionate share of criticisms from the west but the nature and force of their retaliation must have impressed many strategic and military observers. Military options seek gains and advantages, a ceasefire factors losses. 9th day direct involvement and bombing of Iran by the foremost military power USA, the fact that it led to a ceasefire and not surrender speaks for Iran’s military capability. Strait of Hormuz remained functional and open throughout the conflict also bolsters Iran's standing.

Role of US in Iran-Israel conflict

It’s a first in the middle-east that after the US joined a conflict with active bombing and yet was only able to obtain a ceasefire? For its one-off attack America flew its B-2 bombers thousands of miles from home and according to Pentagon's media brief it involved 125 aircraft!

US bases dot the middle east and there are dedicated fleets present in the region to ensure that economic and strategic routes remain open for decades. Military presence and interventions by the western power in the regional affairs has been normalised beyond the international rules and principles in this part of the world. This history of entanglements of the west in the Arab world, west Asian region as a source straddles many regional conflicts. For example, the US immersion and engagement in the events that led to 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. The typical coupling of the source and the available resource in this region, elide and often eclipse a solution that can lead to peace, prosperity and stability. The 12th day war was a product of this complex mix; what would be its regional and global repercussions? And to replay a catchphrase, a fad that ‘global’ media deploys with good effect – what next?

The offence and defence may appear as two distinct sides of a coin but are one for the military and strategic thought, sop and their operations. However, the official stance of the US is that it will not join 'offence' but help Israel in 'defence'. Some prominent countries of western Europe also have similar agreements or this sort of stance towards Israel. This helps them in defending their actual roles to the wider public. Israel has learnt to pivot this advantage to maximum and often begins an attack in the region drawing support from important and present powers through their avowed agreements and stances.

A nuclear deal with Iran has animated the US and western Europe for decades and the identification of contours of that agreement has defied mutual agreement for decades. A civilian and peaceful nuclear programe was/is underway under the aegis of IAEA in Iran. Iran is a signatory to NPT and member of IAEA, and they are international agencies and agreements. The US has been pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran, when Iran is a party to multilateral agreements in this respect. The US perceives Iran as a regional threat and enjoys status of imminence, as a de facto power.

Israel terms Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthis as Iran’s proxies and Iran's presence in Syria are threats for Israel. Israel also sees Iran’s nuclear programe, which it believes is for nuclear weapons as existential threats. One of the primary and stated objectives of this aggression by Israel on Iran was to degrade their nuclear infrastructure and military capabilities. A deal between Iran and the US on this issue has not been forthcoming and negotiation and diplomacy has been intermittent. For example the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief.

If Israel succeeds in this mission US-Iran nuclear deal will not be required? The US was most likely in the loop of this offensive, if not an active party since the beginning of the operations on 13th June. Once hostilities ensued and the top military leadership was decapitated along with 14 prominent nuclear scientists from Iran, peace and avoiding wider conflict definitely was given a short shift for what president of USA, Donald Trump said, 'military gains' and security concerns. Economic and strategic interests of US and military presence in this region are intertwined and Iran’s military capacity and a potential or imminent nuclear bomb is not in its interest.

The Events and Pretext

An IAEA report has censored Iran after its scheduled and continuous inspection of its nuclear facilities. The IAEA report was made available in May and before that November last year. IAEA reports of non-compliance and of censsoring Iran has a long history.

Iran was negotiating with the US and few negotiators and the 'team' behind was dead on the first day of conflict itself. Talk was scheduled ON Monday, and delegates leaving their countries on Saturday, Israel attacked on Friday. 

The digital and civilian technological infrastructure of Iran collapsed and in the last days of conflict the internet was not available in Iran. However, Israel was able to warn its citizens about upcoming missiles and ceaselessly continue its psychological operations. The shared message and info-graphic about intrusive aircraft, drones and barrage of incoming missiles made it clear to the observers that the offensive was not following Israel's script to the t. Israel had stupendous and overwhelming success on the first day but the turnaround started on the second. What about the plot? Many believed during the war and as ceasefire holds that plots were far too many. Can we plot them with hindsight? Why nuclear plot emerged as a prominent inflection point and continues to structure and orient discussions?

The emergency security council meeting on Iran’s request on the second day also had a briefing from Grossi, DG of IAEA and BBC, AP and Reuters reported that Uranium enrichment limits had been breached but there was no imminent nuclear bomb. So, the imminent nuclear bomb line is a pretext. Israel through its covert operations was in a position to decapitate the top Iranian military leadership and assassinate Iran’s prominent nuclear scientists. The plan and intention was to exploit this situation to attack Iran's war machine and nuclear facilities and Israel aggressively took this path: unilaterally as president Trump and Rubio claimed, initially? Btw, Netanyahu has been playing and relaying the imminent Iranian nuclear bomb, red card, since 1992.

The air dominance from western Iran to Tehran is in line with US bases and presence. The neighbors of Iran are allowing sorties from Israel? National boundaries within the region are porous? Or most countries are with Israel in this conflict, as reports from Jordan and Oman revealed? This short war brought out how missiles can counter air superiority and dominance and this aspect was keenly observed within and outside the region.

Rules prohibit attack on all Nuclear sites. An attack on civilian, research oriented reactors or military related nuclear facilities risks radiation and contamination and international law, rules and agreements prohibit attack on them. According to IAEA Fordow, Esfahan, and Natanz are under construction sites and after the US bombed them with bunker buster bombs( GBU-57) they came into more prominence, though Israel has already attacked them.  

Before the finalisation of Protocol I and II within the Geneva convention in 1949 at Norsk hydrogen-electolysis plant was attacked in Nazi Germany in 1943. In 1981, Israel preemptively attacked Iran’s Osirak Nuclear reactor which was under construction and began a dangerous offensive strategy. All other instances after the world wars has occurred in the Middle east. Except one attack by Iraq on Iran, Israel or US are the aggressors in all other instances. In June 2025, again Israel first and then the US attacked nuclear sites of Iran. Except these episodes and countries involved Military strikes on nuclear sites are unprecedented barring middle east after the wars.

By their very nature nuclear weapons blur the fragile distinction between civilian and military and combatants and non-combatants. Risks of radiation will engulf other beings and populations in adjacent regions.

NPT, Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Iran cannot have nuclear weapons as a policy line, baseline for negotiation or objective has been followed by all American presidents from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump. Iran has signed Non- proliferation treaty(Charter Member)and has been pursuing a nuclear programe under the stipulations and rules of IAEA and as such Iran agrees that it cannot have a N-weapon. SO why do Presidents across party lines and official statements repeat that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons? The same line is used to mean different things!

Non-proliferation has been off agenda from prominent declarations and forums. India and Pakistan have not signed the NPT treaty and possess nuclear weapons. They faced and resisted the pressure on this front and this aspect does not feature as a central bone of contention though many sanctions exist. North Korea signed reluctantly, then withdrew only to sign an agreement with South Korea not to proliferate in 2001 and conducted a test in 2006! Israel has not signed NPT and is touted and assumed to possess nuclear weapons. Why can Israel have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? Israel has a civilian and research oriented nuclear programe.

NPT is also considered discriminatory by many analysts as different provisions and stipulations govern the treaty depending on the status of the nuclear programe of joining states. The terms of NPT were finalised in 1960 and are out of sync with the new scientific and technological advancements and in this sense outdated. NPT was also an attempt to freeze the power dynamic and status of nations according to their nuclear capability and maintain the status quo in future. Non-proliferation concern is guiding the attitude and reactions towards Iran? The reactions exhibit frequently paraded western bias or a clear instance of duplicity of standards? This analysis is more inclined to treat them as a collision of priorities or an occasion for ideologies coming to the fore in crisis?

Western Responses to War

Pakistan and Iran are neighbors, Islamic countries. If you are in the good books of the US as Pakistan is and Iran is not, nations can exercise different options. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, fought a war last month with a nuclear-capable state and next month Pakistani Army Chief had lunch with the American president. And, Iran cannot have Nuclear weapons!

Why negotiate when regime change is on; who will make the deal? Bombs, a one-off mission, negotiation or nuclear deal? Let's start all and then take a call? Ukraine gets financial, strategic and military supplies, Israel active, direct involvement! Forget Gaza, focus on Iran! What do these choices and priorities signal and are directed to whom? President Trump’s social media posts and ‘impromptu’ interactions indicate that bombs signal a 'time for peace'! The strong arm tactics of the US is widely acknowledged in diplomatic circles and his messaging and actions brought the focus back on him and the negotiating strategy of the US. Away from Israeli actions?

The preemptive strikes, bombing of nuclear sites, sanctions, boycotts help the cause of nuclear proliferation and disarmament? Western reactions to Iranian nuclear( civilian and otherwise) goals push countries towards the BOMB. Iranian missiles reached most part of Israeli territory and as declaration of intent and demonstration of capacity Iran targeted the largest US military base in the middle-east in Qatar. If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel and especially the USA with its bases and fleet in the middle-east would think twice before launching an offensive. Nuclear weapons act as deterrence and highlight red lines that cannot be crossed. The events and their aftermath has undermined the salience of nuclear weapons in the Middle east or in the rest of the world?

Civil Nuclear Programe

Nuclear programes for civilian uses have been expanding and gaining wider acceptance. FYI, France has been an outlier on this front for decades. France produces 72 percent of its electricity through nuclear plants by the year 2020.

In the light of concerns of climate change and fossil based power generation various national actors and parties are looking toward nuclear power. Meta intends to harness nuclear power to sustain the huge energy demands of upcoming AI infrastructure and existing and expanding digital empire.

War and News Coverage

Facts and reports are part of the collateral that instability, disorder and war brings with it? The new wars are also info and cyber based and aligned and tied with psychological operations.The playbook recommends overplay civic casualties and hide hits on military targets. Mostly propaganda and to quote ‘BIBI’, Prime Minister, Netanyahu reports based 'on conversations that never happened'.

The available media reports and social media posts were dominated by how the military resources of Iran are depleting, and what all were hit and affected by strikes on Iran. What about Israel? They have been bombing Gaza for 20 months, Lebanon and now Iran. The defence batteries of Israel were also active. Israeli resources are limitless or their supply chains remain intact? How?

Reports and versions aided by the social media witnessed an explosion and were explosive; and many were based on unknown sources and speculations. A lot, however, was also explicitly stated by involved parties and prominent personalities encharged with decisions. In a long media post and media interviews JD Vance, VP, explained the US decision and presented technical issues as well. Achieved Uranium enrichment of 60% was flagged and 90% requirement for nuclear weapons which was far away and more complex was discussed. Technical details precipitated, led to the outbreak of hostilities and offensive? Vance said President Trump is consistent: when he veered in all directions during the conflict. Declaring Israel’s offensive as unilateral, he sought surrender and evacuation of Tehran and then ordered a military strike. Then, Trump celebrated the success of a one-off US bombing mission. President Trump also announced a ceasefire after the bombing and publicly expressed his dissatisfaction over its violation by both parties! His response to Iran this time as President is also not in line with his response to his first time ascendancy to president.

After the 9th day he used the word ‘we’ and was effusive in his praise of weapons and military arsenal that is produced in the US and how 'Israel has a lot of it' and 'knows how to use it'! Last month he visited this region and signed many record shattering defence deals. The war is also an arena and space to produce and sell more weapons and serve as the best advertisements for weapons. The US belief and appetite of generating, sustaining a crisis through bombing was loud and present and no one was allowed or can afford to ignore this aspect of US foreign policy.

US has been pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran for decades. Vance said that US is against Iran's nuclear programe, after the ceasefire. Can we have a nuclear deal without a nuclear programe? IAEA rules allow nuclear enrichment and NPT permits exit.

A country or the world can bomb their way out from a crisis?

The global and international order is based on formal and informal agreements, rules and institutions to sustain and enforce arrangements between nations and states. Power imbalances are managed and the system adapts with shifts in power and its determinants. Many analysts and projections assumed the waning of US led uni polar order and US efforts to regain its preeminent position would be largely peaceful. This has not been the case. A mix of unresolved and new fault lines, conflicts and issues are assuming the forms of force, violence and war. The recent adoption of 5% of GDP as spending targets for NATO members also indicates that war and military goals will be addressed systematically.

The nature of the conflict, means and methods employed by involved nations and finally its outcome shattered a lot of myths -- Iranian invincibilit, Israel's supriority and finality attached to US military interventions and strikes.

NOTE : Gemini, google's AI has created a short interactive web page 'from' this content. The link to two distinct short interactive page is here and here.