Israel, Iran, and the Dawn of a New Middle Eastern War
Israel, Iran, and the Dawn of a New Middle Eastern War
(This article has been updated as of June 18, 14:00 GMT)
I. Summary
On June 13, 2025, the long-simmering shadow war between the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran erupted into direct, state-on-state military conflict, fundamentally altering the strategic landscape of the Middle East. Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion,” a meticulously planned and technologically sophisticated offensive, marked the culmination of years of intelligence groundwork and a series of escalating tit-for-tat strikes. The operation successfully degraded critical elements of Iran’s nuclear program, decapitated a significant portion of its senior military command, and crippled its conventional war-making capabilities.
Iran’s retaliation, codenamed “Operation True Promise III,” demonstrated the reach and potency of its ballistic missile arsenal, striking deep into Israeli territory and causing casualties and damage in major cities, including a symbolic hit on the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. However, the response also laid bare the vulnerabilities of Iran’s air defenses and the finite nature of its offensive missile stockpiles in the face of a sustained Israeli campaign of attrition.
The conflict has exposed the limitations of both nations' long-held security doctrines. Israel’s preemptive strike tested the viability of its “Begin Doctrine” against a large, dispersed state, while Iran’s reliance on a “Forward Defense” strategy, conducted through regional proxies, failed its most critical test as the “Axis of Resistance” remained largely on the sidelines. The war has sent shockwaves through the global economy, spiking energy prices and threatening vital shipping lanes, while drawing in great powers—the United States, China, and Russia—each maneuvering to protect its interests in a dangerously unstable region.
This report analyzes the prelude to the war, the execution and strategic implications of both Israeli and Iranian military operations, the clash of doctrines, the international response, and the conflict's economic impact. It provides a detailed timeline of the opening days and concludes with a probabilistic forecast of future scenarios. The most likely path forward is a state of Contained Escalation (55% Probability), characterized by continued but limited direct strikes, as both sides seek to avoid a mutually destructive, full-scale regional war. However, the risk of a wider conflagration involving the United States remains significant and cannot be dismissed.
II. From Shadow War to Open Conflict
For over four decades, since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 transformed a strategic ally into an implacable ideological foe, the conflict between Israel and Iran was a war fought in the shadows. It was a contest of clandestine operations, cyberattacks, assassinations, and, most visibly, proxy warfare. Iran, feeling the constraints of what its strategists term “strategic loneliness,” cultivated an “Axis of Resistance”—a network of allied militias across the region, with Lebanon’s Hezbollah as its crown jewel and Palestinian groups like Hamas as key partners—to project power and keep conflict far from its own borders. Israel, in turn, waged a relentless campaign of interdiction and sabotage, known as the “campaign between wars” or MABAM, to disrupt this network and delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This carefully managed, albeit violent, equilibrium shattered in 2024, paving the way for open war.
The Prelude to War
The shift from proxy to direct conflict was not a sudden event but the result of an accelerating escalatory spiral, where each move lowered the threshold for the next, making a large-scale operation like Rising Lion seem not only possible but, in the eyes of Israeli leadership, necessary.
The cycle began in earnest on April 1, 2024, when an Israeli airstrike demolished the Iranian consulate building in Damascus, killing several senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders. By striking what was legally sovereign Iranian territory, Israel broke the unwritten rules of the shadow war. Iran felt compelled to respond in kind, and on April 14, it launched its first-ever direct missile and drone attack against Israel. Though largely intercepted by a U.S.-led coalition, the attack established a new and dangerous precedent: direct state-on-state fire was now on the table. Israel’s muted counter-strike on an air defense base near Isfahan did little to de-escalate.
The summer and fall of 2024 saw a series of audacious Israeli operations that further eroded any remaining red lines. In July, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated by an apparent Israeli strike while in Tehran for the inauguration of Iran's new president. The killing of a high-profile guest of the state in its own capital was a profound humiliation for the Islamic Republic. This was followed in September by the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut. In October, Iran launched its second direct missile attack on Israel, which was again followed by a more forceful Israeli counter-strike on Iranian missile and air defense sites.
This escalating cycle of direct attacks occurred against a critical backdrop: the systemic weakening of Iran’s proxy network. Throughout 2023 and 2024, Israel’s military operations had decimated the capabilities of both Hamas and Hezbollah. This degradation of the Axis of Resistance was a crucial permissive factor in Israel's strategic calculations. With its primary proxy shields in tatters, Iran was left more isolated than ever, its forward defense doctrine critically undermined. The path to a direct, large-scale confrontation was now clear. The mutual, albeit reluctant, acceptance that the old rules no longer applied created a feedback loop where each side felt compelled to answer the other’s move with greater force, leading directly to the strategic decision in Israel to launch a comprehensive, preemptive campaign rather than continue with piecemeal responses.
III. Operation Rising Lion: Israel's Strike
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the commencement of Operation Rising Lion in the early hours of June 13, 2025, he was unleashing a military and intelligence endeavor of unprecedented scale and complexity. It was not a reactive measure but a proactive, preemptive strike designed to fundamentally alter Iran's strategic capabilities and, perhaps, the stability of its regime.
Operation Naming and Symbolism
The operation's name was a deliberate act of political and ideological messaging. "Rising Lion" is a direct reference to the Book of Numbers 23:24 in the Hebrew Bible: "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain". Netanyahu had personally foreshadowed this framing weeks earlier, highlighting the verse at a bible competition and, just before the attack, placing a handwritten note with the phrase into a crack at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest prayer site. This was a clear communication to the Israeli public and the world, casting the conflict as an existential struggle for national survival, rooted in biblical prophecy and divine sanction.
Intelligence and Technology
The operational success of Rising Lion was built on a foundation of painstaking intelligence work, technological innovation, and strategic deception that had been years in the making.
Years of Groundwork: The Israeli military and the Mossad, its foreign intelligence agency, collaborated for at least three years to lay the operational groundwork. This long-term preparation, which built on lessons learned from more limited strikes in October 2024 that exposed weaknesses in Iranian air defenses, underscores the strategic, rather than tactical, nature of the decision to attack.
Covert Asset Placement: In a feat of clandestine tradecraft, Mossad agents, working with a network of both local Iranians and Israelis, successfully smuggled assets deep into Iranian territory. These included small, armed drones and other precision-guided munitions, which were hidden in vehicles and prepositioned near critical targets, most notably Iranian surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries. This hybrid approach—combining covert special operations with a conventional air campaign—was a key innovation. By neutralizing Iranian air defenses from within just as the main air armada approached, Mossad effectively turned parts of Iran into forward operating bases, multiplying the effectiveness of the Israeli strike and contributing to the swift collapse of Iran's defensive screen.
The Role of AI: The targeting process was supercharged by the use of advanced artificial intelligence models. Beginning in October 2024, Israeli intelligence began feeding vast troves of data into AI systems to rapidly sift through information, identify critical nodes in Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure, and build detailed profiles of high-value targets. One intelligence officer was tasked with using these tools to compile lists of Iranian generals, including their work locations and leisure activities, enabling the precise decapitation strikes that marked the opening hours of the war.
Strategic Deception: The timing of the attack was a masterpiece of misdirection. Israel launched the operation just days before a sixth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations was scheduled to take place in Oman. This, coupled with public statements from the Trump administration that seemed to favor a diplomatic track, appears to have lulled Tehran into a false sense of security, with Iranian officials believing an attack was not imminent while talks were pending.
The Air Campaign
The sheer scale and scope of the Israeli attack dwarfed any previous military action against Iran.
Scale of the Attack: The first 24 hours saw a fusillade involving over 200 Israeli combat aircraft—including advanced F-35I Adir stealth fighters, F-15I Ra'am, and F-16I Sufa jets—striking more than 100 distinct targets across Iran. Subsequent waves continued over the following days, though with smaller packages of around 50 aircraft each.
Targeting the Pillars of the Regime: The nature of the targets selected reveals a strategic objective that transcended mere delay of the nuclear program. The aim appears to have been the systemic degradation of the Iranian state's ability to project power and a deliberate attempt to induce regime instability.
Decapitation Strikes: In a stunning blow to the Iranian security establishment, the initial strikes killed a significant portion of the country's senior military command. The dead included General Hossein Salami, the powerful commander of the IRGC; General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of the entire Iranian armed forces; and General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the influential head of the IRGC's Aerospace Force, which controls Iran's ballistic missile program. These near-simultaneous assassinations were designed to cripple Iran's command, control, and communications at the outset of the war.
Nuclear Infrastructure Degradation: The operation dealt a significant, though not fatal, blow to Iran's nuclear program. Israeli strikes destroyed the above-ground Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) and critical electrical infrastructure at the Natanz nuclear complex. At the Isfahan nuclear site, the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), which produces the uranium hexafluoride gas needed for enrichment, and the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant (FPFP) were also severely damaged or destroyed. In addition to the physical infrastructure, more than a dozen of Iran's top nuclear scientists were killed in targeted strikes and car bombings. However, the operation's limits were also clear: the main enrichment halls at Natanz and the deeply buried Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant reportedly survived the attacks, highlighting the difficulty of destroying such hardened facilities without specialized U.S. bunker-busting munitions.
Conventional Military and Economic Targets: The target list extended far beyond the nuclear file. Israeli jets systematically dismantled Iran's air defense network, destroying over 70 SAM systems in the first few days, which allowed Israel to establish air superiority over western Iran and Tehran. They also struck ballistic missile production facilities, storage warehouses, and airbases near Tehran, Kermanshah, and Tabriz. In later waves, the campaign expanded to include economic targets, hitting oil and gas infrastructure like the South Pars gas refinery and the headquarters of the state broadcaster in Tehran, in a clear effort to compound military pressure with economic pain.
This broader objective of destabilization helps explain the immense risks Israel was willing to undertake. The potential reward was not just a temporary nuclear setback, but a fundamental weakening of its primary regional adversary.
IV. Operation True Promise III: Iran's Retaliation
On the evening of June 13, hours after the initial Israeli onslaught, Iran unleashed its response. Codenamed “Operation True Promise III,” the retaliatory campaign was a massive display of Iran’s primary deterrent capability: its indigenous ballistic missile and drone arsenal. While the operation inflicted unprecedented damage and psychological shock upon the Israeli home front, it also exposed the strategic vulnerabilities that Israel’s campaign sought to exploit.
Scale of the Attack
Iran’s counter-attack was swift and substantial. Beginning on the evening of June 13 and continuing in waves over the subsequent days, Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and more than 100 attack drones toward Israel. This marked the first time since the state's founding that Israelis faced direct, sustained missile attacks from a state actor deep within their territory. The primary targets were major population centers and strategic sites, including Jerusalem, the port city of Haifa, and the commercial and military heart of the country, Tel Aviv.
Iranian Capabilities
The attacks showcased the key platforms of the IRGC Aerospace Force. The barrages included a mix of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) from the Fateh-110 family, which have ranges of 300-500 km, and the more advanced Qiam-1, a liquid-fueled missile with a range of 750 km and enhanced targeting systems. These were supplemented by waves of Shahed-136 loitering munitions, or "suicide drones".
In a move of significant symbolic and strategic importance, one of the primary targets was the Kirya, Israel’s military headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv. Verified footage showed at least one direct missile impact within the compound, demonstrating Iran's ability to strike the very nerve center of the Israeli defense establishment. Other missiles struck oil refinery infrastructure in Haifa and residential and commercial areas across central Israel.
Impact on Israel
The Iranian onslaught provided the first real-world, large-scale test of Israel’s multi-layered aerial defense system, widely regarded as the most sophisticated on the planet. The system—comprising the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems for exo-atmospheric ballistic missile interception, David’s Sling for medium-range threats, and the Iron Dome—performed admirably, but not perfectly.
Bolstered by U.S. assets, including a naval destroyer and a THAAD battery, Israeli defenses achieved an estimated interception rate of 80-90%. However, the sheer volume of the Iranian salvos was designed to saturate these defenses. This strategy proved partially successful, as dozens of missiles managed to penetrate the defensive screen and strike their targets. These impacts resulted in at least 24 Israeli fatalities and hundreds of injuries, along with significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in Tel Aviv, Rishon LeZion, Bat Yam, and other cities.
The psychological impact was immense. The successful penetration of some missiles, particularly the hit on the Kirya, shattered Israel's long-held sense of near-invulnerability behind its technological shield. The sight of destruction in Tel Aviv was a strategic shock that will force a major reassessment of Israeli defensive doctrine and drive massive new investment in missile defense capacity, including next-generation systems like the Iron Beam laser interceptor.
Crucially, however, the intensity of the Iranian barrages appeared to wane over subsequent days. The initial large waves gave way to smaller, more sporadic launches. This observable degradation of Iran's offensive capacity suggested that Israel's preemptive strikes on missile launchers, production facilities, and storage depots were having their intended effect. Iran's retaliation, while damaging, inadvertently validated a core Israeli strategic assumption: that its offensive missile capability, while formidable, is finite and vulnerable to a campaign of attrition. By launching its main salvo, Iran played its hand, demonstrating to Israeli planners that their strategy of "striking the archer, not just the arrows" was working. The conflict thus became a race: could Israel destroy launchers faster than Iran could fire its remaining missiles? The early evidence suggested it could, providing a powerful incentive for Israel to press its advantage.
V. A Clash of Doctrines
The war that erupted on June 13, 2025, is more than a clash of armies; it is a violent collision of two deeply entrenched, yet fundamentally opposed, national security doctrines. For both Israel and Iran, this conflict represents a high-stakes "doctrinal stress test," forcing each nation to confront the limits of the strategic playbooks that have guided them for decades. The outcome of this test will likely compel one or both to rewrite their most fundamental assumptions about how to ensure their survival.
Israel's Preemptive Doctrine
Israel’s actions are rooted in a security paradigm forged by its unique geopolitical circumstances: a small nation surrounded by historical adversaries, possessing a narrow margin for strategic error. This has given rise to a doctrine that prioritizes preemption, technological superiority, and decisive offensive action.
The Begin Doctrine: At the heart of Operation Rising Lion lies the "Begin Doctrine," an undeclared but consistently applied policy of anticipatory self-defense. Enunciated by Prime Minister Menachem Begin after Israel’s 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the doctrine holds that Israel will not permit any hostile regional power that calls for its destruction to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The doctrine was invoked again in 2007 with the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor. Operation Rising Lion represents the doctrine’s most audacious and complex application to date. It expands the concept from targeting a single, vulnerable facility to attempting to dismantle an entire nation’s widely dispersed, hardened, and defended nuclear program and its supporting military-industrial complex. This conflict tests whether the Begin Doctrine, conceived for a different era, remains viable against a large, resilient state like Iran. The survival of hardened sites like Fordow suggests that the doctrine may trigger a devastating war without fully achieving its core objective.
The End of the Dagan Doctrine: For much of the 21st century, Israel’s approach to Iran was guided by the so-called "Dagan Doctrine," named for former Mossad chief Meir Dagan. This strategy favored a "grey zone" war of covert action—sabotage, cyberattacks like Stuxnet, and targeted assassinations of scientists—to delay and disrupt Iran’s nuclear program without triggering a full-scale war. Operation Rising Lion marks a definitive and historic break from this approach. It reflects a calculation within the Israeli government that the Dagan Doctrine had run its course and that Iran’s nuclear progress had reached a point where only direct, overwhelming military force could suffice.
Qualitative Military Edge (QME): Underpinning all of Israel’s strategic thinking is the imperative of maintaining a Qualitative Military Edge (QME). This principle, actively supported by the United States for decades, aims to ensure that Israel’s technological, intelligence, and tactical capabilities remain superior to the combined quantitative strength of its potential adversaries. The advanced technologies showcased in Rising Lion—from the F-35I Adir to the AI-driven targeting and covert drone operations—were a forceful demonstration and re-assertion of this QME, which Israeli leaders perceived as eroding in the face of Iran’s advancing missile and nuclear programs.
Iran's Asymmetric Doctrine
Iran’s security posture has been shaped by its post-revolutionary isolation and its conventional military inferiority relative to adversaries like the United States and Israel. This has produced a doctrine reliant on asymmetric methods to deter attack and project influence.
Strategic Loneliness and Forward Defense: Lacking reliable great power allies for much of its history, the Islamic Republic developed the concept of "forward defense". The core principle, as articulated by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is to confront threats beyond Iran's borders to prevent war from reaching its homeland. In practice, this meant building, funding, and directing the "Axis of Resistance," a network of proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen that could harass Israel and U.S. interests, creating a buffer and a deterrent shield for Tehran.
The Pivot to Conventional Deterrence: This conflict has exposed the catastrophic failure of the forward defense doctrine in its most critical test. With its key proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, severely degraded in prior conflicts, the Axis failed to mount a meaningful, coordinated, multi-front response to the attack on its patron. This has forced Iran into a direct confrontation it had long sought to avoid, compelling it to rely on its own conventional capabilities—primarily its ballistic missile and drone arsenal—as its main deterrent. This represents a monumental and painful strategic pivot for Tehran. For decades, its security concept was built on others fighting its battles. Now, with missiles falling on its capital, it must confront the question of whether its indigenous arsenal is a credible enough deterrent on its own. The answer will shape its future strategic choices, including the critical decision of whether to now race for the "ultimate deterrent" of a nuclear weapon, believing its conventional forces have proven insufficient.
VI. The International Arena
The Israel-Iran war has not been fought in a vacuum. It has immediately drawn in the world’s great powers, each with competing interests and strategic calculations, and has sent diplomatic tremors across the globe. The responses from Washington, Moscow, Beijing, and European capitals have been a complex mix of condemnation, cautious support, and urgent calls for de-escalation, revealing the deep geopolitical fault lines this conflict has exposed.
The United States
The position of the United States under the Trump administration has been the most critical and the most contradictory. Washington has attempted to walk a fine line, seeking to achieve maximalist goals—preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon and ensuring the security of its closest regional ally—with what it hoped would be minimalist means.
Publicly, President Trump insisted the U.S. "had nothing to do with the attack" and was not involved in the strikes. Yet, behind the scenes, Israel reportedly notified the U.S. before launching the operation, and the U.S. military provided direct defensive support, helping to intercept incoming Iranian missiles and drones. This public disavowal was paired with fiercely aggressive rhetoric, including a demand for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" and warnings that any attack on U.S. interests would be met with overwhelming force.
This ambiguous posture has created a dangerous strategic vacuum. By giving Israel a perceived green light (or at least, not a red one), the U.S. enabled the conflict. However, by refusing to participate offensively, it left Israel without the capability to achieve a decisive military victory, such as the destruction of the hardened Fordow nuclear facility, which would likely require specialized American munitions. This half-measure strategy risks the worst of all worlds: a protracted and bloody conflict that fails to eliminate the nuclear threat, destabilizes the global economy, and could still drag the U.S. into a direct war if Iran, feeling cornered, decides to target American bases in retaliation for U.S. defensive support of Israel.
Russia and China
For Moscow and Beijing, the conflict presents a strategic opportunity wrapped in risk. Both nations swiftly condemned Israel’s strikes as a violation of international law and Iranian sovereignty.
China: As Iran’s primary economic lifeline and a key military supplier, China’s position is crucial. Beijing purchases nearly 90% of Iran’s oil exports, providing the hard currency that funds the regime, and has supplied critical components for Iran's ballistic missile program. China’s primary interest is regional stability to protect its energy security and its vast Belt and Road Initiative investments. It has therefore positioned itself as a potential mediator, calling for de-escalation while firmly supporting Iran diplomatically.
Russia: Moscow’s relationship with Tehran is more transactional and complex, marked by both cooperation and underlying rivalry. Russia, like the West, does not wish to see a nuclear-armed Iran. However, it sees clear advantages in the current crisis. The war distracts global attention from its own conflict in Ukraine, drives up oil prices which benefits the Russian economy, and provides an opportunity to showcase its relevance as a global power broker, even offering to mediate.
For both Russia and China, the war serves the broader strategic goal of challenging the U.S.-led global order. The spectacle of a key U.S. ally embroiled in a major war that the U.S. seems unable to control or decisively win weakens American prestige and consumes American resources, creating space for their own influence to grow.
Europe and the G7
The response from European powers and the G7 has been predictably divided. On one hand, there have been urgent calls for restraint and de-escalation from all sides, with leaders like the UK’s Foreign Secretary stating that "no military action can put an end to Iran's nuclear capabilities". On the other hand, these same bodies have unequivocally affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense and reiterated the long-standing Western position that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. This dual messaging reflects their difficult position, caught between a desire to prevent a catastrophic regional war and the imperative to support a key Western-aligned democratic partner against a hostile, theocratic regime.
VII. The Role of Proxies
One of the most strategically significant developments in the opening phase of the Israel-Iran war was not what happened, but what did not. For years, Iran’s "forward defense" doctrine was predicated on the power of its "Axis of Resistance"—a network of proxy militias that could open multiple fronts against Israel in the event of a major conflict. When the attack on the patron state finally came, this vaunted axis proved to be a paper tiger, its key components prioritizing self-preservation over the defense of Tehran.
Hezbollah's Conspicuous Silence: The most powerful of Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, possesses an arsenal of over 100,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided munitions capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Yet, as Israeli jets pounded Iran, Hezbollah’s front remained largely quiet. This inaction is likely the result of several factors. The group was severely degraded in its own war with Israel in 2023-2024, losing much of its senior leadership and military hardware. Furthermore, there is immense domestic pressure within Lebanon, a country already on the brink of economic and political collapse, to avoid being dragged into another devastating war for Iran's sake.
Iraqi Militias Fold Under Pressure: In Iraq, a host of powerful Iran-backed Shiite militias, such as Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, have long served as a key node in the Axis, primarily targeting U.S. forces in the region. In the wake of Operation Rising Lion, these groups issued fiery rhetoric and threats, but almost exclusively aimed at the United States, warning of attacks on U.S. bases if Washington intervened directly. They have largely refrained from launching a coordinated campaign against Israel. There have been sporadic and minor drone attacks launched toward U.S. bases and northern Israel, but nothing resembling a major second front. This restraint is reportedly due to intense pressure from the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which has made it clear to the militia leaders that it wants no part in a regional war between its two powerful patrons, Tehran and Washington.
The Houthis' Limited Role: In Yemen, the Houthi movement has demonstrated its solidarity by launching several long-range ballistic missiles and drones toward Israel. However, due to the vast distances involved and the group's more limited capabilities, these attacks have been largely symbolic and easily intercepted, posing no significant strategic threat to Israel.
The failure of the Axis of Resistance to engage in a coordinated, multi-front war reveals a fundamental flaw in Iran's grand strategy. The network appears to be less a monolithic bloc under Tehran's absolute command and more a loose coalition of actors with their own, often diverging, local interests and constraints. The Axis is a useful tool for projecting Iranian influence when the cost is low, but when the patron itself is under massive, direct attack, the proxies have clearly shown that they will prioritize their own survival. This strategic miscalculation by Tehran was almost certainly a key permissive factor in Israel’s decision to launch its attack.
VIII. Economic Impact
The eruption of direct war between Israel and Iran sent immediate and powerful shockwaves through the global economy. The conflict’s economic fallout is not merely a side effect; it is a core component of the strategic calculations for all major powers involved. The threat of economic chaos acts as both a powerful deterrent against escalation and a potential weapon of last resort.
Energy Markets
The most immediate impact was felt in the global energy markets. Oil prices leaped on the news of the initial Israeli strikes, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, jumping by as much as 13% in a single day, its steepest rise since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Prices rallied to over $76 per barrel from lows in the mid-$60s just days earlier.
Iran itself is a major oil producer, accounting for about 4% of global supply, but the far greater risk lies in its geographic position astride the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway is the world's most critical energy chokepoint, with 20-30% of all seaborne oil shipments passing through it daily. Analysts warn that any attempt by Iran to close or disrupt shipping in the strait—a move it has threatened—would be a catastrophic event for the global economy. Such a scenario would almost certainly push oil prices well above $100 per barrel, and some forecasts suggest prices could spike to $150 or higher, triggering a severe global recession. This threat is a double-edged sword for Tehran: it is Iran’s most powerful form of leverage, but exercising it would also cut off its own primary source of revenue from oil sales to China and would almost certainly provoke a direct and massive U.S. military intervention.
Global Markets
Beyond the price of oil, the conflict threatens global shipping and financial stability. The risk of attacks on commercial vessels has led to soaring insurance premiums for any ships transiting the region. This increases logistics costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers worldwide.
Global financial markets reacted with immediate alarm. On the day of the attack, stock indices slumped across Asia, Europe, and the United States, with the S&P 500 falling over 1% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping by more than 700 points. Investors fled from risk assets into traditional safe havens, most notably gold, whose price surged toward its record high.
The conflict also poses a significant threat to the fight against inflation. A sustained period of high energy prices would feed directly into higher consumer prices for fuel, transportation, and goods, complicating the monetary policy of central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. This could force them to delay or even reverse planned interest rate cuts, putting a brake on economic growth. The global economy, therefore, is not just a victim of this conflict; it is a central battlefield where strategic moves are made and where the stakes are highest for all involved.
IX. Conflict Timeline (June 13-18)
The opening phase of the Israel-Iran war was characterized by a rapid and violent cycle of action and reaction. The following timeline provides a granular, day-by-day account of the key military and diplomatic events during the first six days of the conflict, illustrating the pace of escalation.
X. Future Scenarios
The trajectory of the Israel-Iran war remains highly uncertain, contingent on the strategic calculations in Tel Aviv and Tehran, the actions of great powers, and the potential for miscalculation. Based on the current dynamics, three primary scenarios emerge, each with distinct probabilities and implications. This analysis provides a forward-looking framework for policymakers to anticipate and navigate the challenges ahead.
Conflict Scenarios
The following table outlines the most likely future paths for the conflict, assigning probabilities based on an assessment of the key drivers and constraints facing each actor.
Nuclear Risk
While the conflict is currently conventional, the nuclear shadow looms large. The risk of nuclear weapons use remains low but is not zero. The following table assesses the probability of various nuclear scenarios.
XI. Conclusion
Operation Rising Lion was not an isolated event but the violent culmination of a clear and accelerating escalatory pattern that has fundamentally and irrevocably transformed the nature of the Iran-Israel conflict. The decades-long shadow war, fought through proxies and clandestine operations, is over. In its place is a new and dangerous era of direct, state-on-state military confrontation, where the old rules no longer apply and the threat of large-scale conventional war is no longer a theoretical possibility, but a recent and repeatable reality.
In this opening phase of the war, Israel has successfully re-asserted its Qualitative Military Edge. Through a masterful integration of intelligence, technology, and military force, it has exposed deep vulnerabilities in the Iranian state, degrading its nuclear program, decapitating its military leadership, and crippling its conventional forces. Yet this success has come at a steep price. Israel has expended immense military and financial resources, and for the first time, the myth of its near-invulnerability has been shattered by Iranian missiles striking its major cities. The psychological impact on its populace and the strain on its advanced, but finite, defensive shield are strategic liabilities that will shape its actions for years to come.
Iran, in turn, has faced a strategic catastrophe. Its "forward defense" doctrine, the cornerstone of its national security for a generation, failed in its most critical test as its vaunted "Axis of Resistance" stood by. Forced into a direct fight it sought to avoid, Iran demonstrated a credible, though limited, conventional deterrent with its missile arsenal. However, it also revealed the fragility of its command structure and air defenses. The conflict has backed the regime into a corner, forcing it to confront a stark choice: pursue a negotiated de-escalation from a position of weakness, or double down on its military programs and make a desperate dash for a nuclear weapon as the only perceived guarantor of its survival.
The war has created a new, profoundly unstable reality. The precedent for massive, direct strikes has been set.
