By Annunthra Rangan
Over the past two years, the Middle East has remained a focal point in international affairs, largely due to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. The United States’ unwavering support for Israel—even amid global condemnation of Tel Aviv’s military actions—has raised serious questions about the nature of their alliance. Many liken it to a deeply entrenched partnership, one where criticism is replaced by blind allegiance.
Amid this turbulence, a new front has emerged: Iran. Once perceived merely as a destabilizing force under the weight of long-standing sanctions, Iran is now asserting itself more aggressively against Israel. While Mossad’s 2017 exposure of Iran’s nuclear programme instilled fear across the international community, what remains less discussed is Israel’s enduring anxiety—particularly over Iran’s ideological and military opposition to its very existence. This animosity dates back to the controversial creation of Israel, when Britain’s unilateral decision to allocate a significant portion of Palestinian land to the Jewish people redrew the region’s geopolitical lines.
Although both Iran and Israel maintain formidable defence infrastructures, their military doctrines and capabilities are markedly distinct, making a prolonged, head-to-head confrontation unlikely. Setting aside Israel’s unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, neither country currently possesses the conventional strength to decisively defeat the other in a sustained war. Iran’s vast geography, dispersed military assets, and reliance on asymmetric warfare through regional proxy networks provide it with a strategic depth that offsets its comparative disadvantages in firepower.
Iran’s post-revolutionary distrust of the former imperial military led to the sidelining of traditional armed forces in favour of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij, a volunteer paramilitary force. These groups have since become central to defending the ideological and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic. In parallel, Iran has significantly expanded its influence beyond its borders by cultivating a network of aligned non-state actors and regional allies, bound by shared strategic goals, varying degrees of ideological alignment, and access to Iranian-supplied weaponry.
Iran’s military-industrial base has advanced considerably, especially in the development and deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missile technologies. Systems such as the Shahed-series drones and various ballistic and cruise missiles are actively used by both state allies—including Russia, Sudan, and Syria—and non-state armed groups. While this indigenous capability boosts Tehran’s strategic resilience, it also creates a network of fixed assets, including research and production sites, which are likely to be seen by Israel as high-value, pre-emptive targets in any potential escalation.
Israel continues to enjoy the support of several major powers, including the United States, key European nations, and India—all of whom reiterate the narrative that Israel “has the right to defend itself”. Yet, beneath this rhetoric lies a more complex reality. In the ongoing conflict with Iran—much like the prolonged crisis with Palestine—it is Iran that has borne the brunt of aggressive military action. The recent 12-day confrontation between Iran and Israel not only shook Tel Aviv, but also exposed the economic and humanitarian toll that war has taken on Israeli soil.
According to reports, Israel incurred an estimated $18 billion in military expenditure during the 12-day campaign. The destruction of key infrastructure in Tel Aviv, along with civilian displacement, has strained the country’s defence budget, pushing it past its allocated limits for the 2025 fiscal year. Despite strong backing from Washington, Israel faced rare criticism from the United States for what was perceived as a lack of strategic restraint in handling the situation.
Property damage and civilian displacement have created a domestic crisis for Israel. Approximately 15,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes, many of which are now slated for demolition or require extensive repairs. Temporary accommodations in hotels across the country have cost the State nearly 100 million shekels (around $29 million). Prior to October 7, 2023, only about 6,000 Israelis were receiving long-term state compensation. That number has now surged to 25,000 following this round of conflict.
From a strategic standpoint, Israel faces significant hurdles in its efforts to neutralize Iran’s nuclear programme. Key Iranian nuclear facilities such as those in Natanz and Fordow are heavily fortified, with the latter constructed deep within a mountain. These underground sites house uranium enrichment centrifuges that can serve both civilian and potential military purposes, posing a formidable challenge to Israeli airstrike capabilities.
Netanyahu has claimed that recent operations have significantly delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Still, he acknowledged that several critical targets remain. When questioned about the long-term objective, Netanyahu maintained that Israel seeks to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He also characterized the Iranian regime as “very weak,” suggesting that internal divisions could be exploited. However, this assessment appears to have misjudged Iran’s internal cohesion. Rather than fracturing, the Iranian state has emerged from the conflict more unified—a reality that undermined Israel’s strategic calculus.
The conflict culminated in a ceasefire on June 25—not due to American mediation, but rather a shift in Israel’s own assessment. Fatigued and facing a resilient opponent, Israeli leadership concluded that continuing hostilities would likely yield diminishing returns. Though US President Donald Trump had earlier announced a ceasefire, Iranian officials publicly refuted any formal agreement at that time. It was only later, under mounting pressure and strategic re-evaluation, that both sides tacitly accepted a cessation of hostilities.
Adding a layer of geopolitical complexity, Iran has received overt support from North Korea, China, and Russia—all of whom have voiced alignment with Tehran’s position in the conflict. This backing not only strengthens Iran’s standing, but also signals a broader global polarization that could shape the contours of Middle Eastern geopolitics in the months to come.
Amid the escalating Iran-Israel conflict, India’s foreign policy stance has drawn considerable scrutiny. Over the past two years, New Delhi has notably refrained from condemning Israel’s actions in Palestine and has consistently abstained from UN votes critical of Tel Aviv. When hostilities broke out between Iran and Israel, India appeared to align itself with Israel—a move that sparked debate both domestically and internationally.
This alignment, however, should not be conflated with the sentiments of the Indian populace. While the government’s position has been diplomatically tilted in favour of Israel, it does not necessarily reflect a unanimous public endorsement, particularly among citizens who view the situation through a humanitarian lens.
A report suggesting that India had opened its airspace for US operations targeting Iran was officially denied by the Indian government. Yet, the very emergence of such reports raises questions about the extent of India’s indirect support and strategic calculus.
Analysts and observers have pointed to a complex set of factors behind New Delhi’s posture. Among them is the growing perception that India’s current foreign policy is increasingly influenced by domestic ideological leanings. Over the past decade, there has been a noticeable shift towards majoritarian politics, with a rise in religiously charged rhetoric and legislation under the current administration. This internal transformation has shaped external alignments, particularly in cases involving Muslim-majority nations.
A segment of the Indian population—estimated to be around a quarter—has expressed support for Israel. But this trend appears to stem less from strategic understanding and more from ideological influence shaped by years of politicised narratives. In a country with a large, educated youth demographic, the question remains: why would such a population support actions widely described as genocidal?
The answer may lie in the subtle yet powerful impact of political messaging, media narratives, and the gradual normalisation of exclusionary politics. What India does next—whether it continues its strategic ambiguity or re-evaluates its position in light of humanitarian principles—will significantly shape its role in an increasingly polarized global order.
While a ceasefire between Iran and Israel has temporarily halted direct confrontation, the Middle East remains a battleground of competing geopolitical interests. The United States seeks to reassert influence in West Asia, driven by strategic and energy concerns. China is expanding its presence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, aiming to reshape the region’s economic order. Russia, with few allies in the region, leans heavily on its partnership with Iran, while European powers remain focused on securing stable energy supplies.
Iran’s long-standing sanctions stem largely from its refusal to trade oil in U.S. dollars, challenging the dominance of Western financial systems. The human cost of the recent conflict has been devastating: at least 25 Israelis and over 430 Iranians have died, with thousands more wounded—highlighting the disproportionate toll.
Despite the ceasefire with Iran, Israel continues its military operations in Palestine. Ongoing bombings in Gaza and the West Bank raise serious concerns about violations of international law and human rights. What was once intended as a shared land has, critics argue, been steadily annexed by Israel under the guise of security.
Ultimately, the ceasefire signals a temporary lull—but the region’s deep-rooted tensions remain unresolved and dangerously volatile.
—The writer is a Senior Research Officer at Chennai Centre for China Studies. Her research interests constitute China-WANA (West Asia and North Africa) relations and human rights
The post Faultlines of Fire: Iran, Israel, and the New Middle East War appeared first on India Legal.