Prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran maintained a robust strategic partnership, underpinned by shared interests and pragmatic regional considerations. As two non-Arab states situated in a predominantly Arab Middle East, both nations aligned in opposition to the growing tide of Arab nationalism personified by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Under the Shah’s pro-Western government, Iran recognized Israel de facto and served as a critical supplier of Israel’s oil and energy security. In turn, Israel provided Iran with agricultural expertise, advanced technology, and military support, fostering mutual cooperation and interdependence. The alliance was emblematic of Israel’s broader “periphery doctrine,” through which it sought partnerships with non-Arab states to counterbalance the hostility emanating from its Arab neighbors.
However, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 marked a profound shift in the relationship between Iran and Israel, transforming the two nations from discreet partners into ideological foes. The revolution replaced the Shah’s secular monarchy with an Islamic theocracy under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, whose rhetoric and policies were explicitly anti-Israel. The new regime not only rejected Israel’s legitimacy but also positioned opposition to it as a cornerstone of its revolutionary ideology. Emphasizing its commitment to the Palestinian cause, Iran labeled Israel as the “Little Satan” aligned with the United States, the “Great Satan.” This ideological orientation was deeply rooted in the regime’s revolutionary principles, framing hostility toward Israel as a defining feature of its identity within a broader narrative of resistance to perceived contemporary and historical Western imperialism.
The adversarial relationship between Iran and Israel has progressively intensified as Tehran has expanded its regional influence and bolstered anti-Israel factions. Iran has emerged as a key patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, offering them substantial financial, military, and logistical support to conduct proxy wars against Israel. Concurrently, Israel has grown increasingly alarmed over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, perceiving them as a direct existential threat to its security. Diplomatic initiatives to constrain Iran’s nuclear activities, exemplified by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, have been met with profound skepticism by Israeli policymakers, who contend that a nuclear-capable Iran could fundamentally alter the region’s strategic equilibrium.
The Israel-Iran rivalry, beyond these ideological and security dimensions, is also a zero-sum geopolitical competition. Iran’s ambition to position itself as the leader of resistance against Israel directly counters Israel’s efforts to integrate strategically into the region through normalization with Arab states, notably under the framework of the Abraham Accords. These agreements, which have fostered closer ties between Israel and nations such as the UAE and Bahrain, represent a significant geopolitical shift that Iran perceives as a direct challenge to its regional influence. The rivalry has transformed into a complex, multidimensional conflict, intertwining ideological, military, and geopolitical factors, with far-reaching consequences for the stability and security of the Middle East.
The United States plays a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of the Israel-Iran rivalry, acting as a strategic ally of Israel and a key architect of an increasingly Israel-accommodating regional order through initiatives like the Abraham Accords. By facilitating normalization agreements and engaging with mixed results in discussions about normalization with every Arab state, Washington has sought to contain Iranian influence and create a coalition of like-minded Iran-opposed partners in the region. Moreover, the U.S. maintains a strong military presence across the Middle East, serving as a deterrent against Iranian aggression and offering informal security guarantees to its allies. At the same time, American policy toward Iran—ranging from the withdrawal from the JCPOA under the first Trump administration to subsequent efforts at reengagement by both Biden and Trump—has had significant implications for the escalation of tensions. The Trump-era “maximum pressure” campaign, marked by sweeping economic sanctions, further strained U.S.-Iran relations. While often aligned with Israeli concerns, the U.S. strategy toward Iran is broader and more comprehensive, shaped by global interests and regional stability considerations.
Proxy Warfare, Covert Operations, and Regional Instability
The complex, multifaceted rivalry features Iran’s strategic alliances with militant groups. Hezbollah emerged in the early 1980s with substantial Iranian support as a key proxy force for Tehran in Lebanon. Iran’s extensive financial, military, and logistical assistance has enabled it to amass a significant stockpile of weaponry, including tens of thousands of rockets and missiles capable of targeting deep within Israeli territory. The 2006 Lebanon War serves as a stark illustration of the growing military threat posed by Hezbollah, as it launched over 4,000 rockets at Israel, demonstrating its ability to challenge Israel’s security and destabilize the region.
Iran’s support for Hamas in Gaza has significantly intensified regional tensions, as Tehran provides both financial and military assistance to the group, thereby enhancing its ability to sustain military confrontations with Israel. This backing, which includes the supply of Iranian-made rockets and the facilitation of sophisticated smuggling networks, has proven essential in enabling Hamas to persist in its military campaigns against Israel, such as during the 2014 and 2023-24 Gaza wars. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a coordinated and devastating assault on southern Israel, marking a significant intensification of their conflict and highlighting the increasing military capabilities supported by Iran. Beyond material aid, Iran’s ideological alignment with Hamas is a central component of its broader strategy to present itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause. Proxy warfare allows Iran to exert pressure on Israel and destabilize the region without engaging in direct confrontation, thereby complicating peace efforts and contributing to Israel’s ongoing security challenges.
Beyond military and ideological dimensions, the Iran-Israel rivalry has increasingly entered the domains of cyber warfare and intensified covert operations. Both states engage in a variety of clandestine activities to advance their respective strategic goals. Israel has frequently been accused of orchestrating the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists to weaken Iran’s nuclear program, a tactic legitimately attributed to Mossad. Notable among these operations was the 2010 killing of Professor Masoud Ali-Mohammadi, a physicist involved in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the 2011 murder of Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, a chemical engineer working at the country’s nuclear facilities. In response to these actions, Iran has employed a range of covert operations aimed at targeting Israeli interests globally, utilizing both direct and proxy methods to retaliate. One of the most significant examples is the 2012 bombing of a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, an attack attributed to Iran’s proxy Hezbollah. This bombing, which killed five Israeli nationals, demonstrated Iran’s desire to maintain plausible deniability. Another notable example is the 2018 plot to attack Israeli diplomats in Denmark attributed to Iranian intelligence services, which was thwarted by Danish authorities.
Further, Iran has been implicated in recent years in a series of maritime attacks targeting Israeli shipping in the Persian Gulf, carried out by Iranian forces or their proxies. One such incident occurred in 2021, when Iranian forces reportedly hijacked the MV Helios Ray, an Israeli-owned cargo vessel, in the Strait of Hormuz. The vessel was attacked with explosives that caused significant damage to its hull, but miraculously, there were no fatalities. This attack was widely attributed to Iran as part of a broader pattern of retaliation against Israeli actions targeting Iranian interests in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere.
While these covert operations often remain partially concealed from the public eye, their far-reaching implications for regional stability are profound, particularly among Middle East and the Arab states that find themselves caught between these two powers. As Iran and Israel continue to engage in a shadow war, employing cyberattacks, assassinations, and proxy confrontations, their actions destabilize not only their direct adversaries but also the region.
The Israeli Iranian Rivalry: Regional Geopolitical Dynamics
The rivalry between Israel and Iran transcends direct military confrontations, deeply permeating conflicts throughout the Middle East, notably in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. These dynamics exacerbate regional instability and underscore the intricate network of alliances and antagonisms shaping Middle Eastern geopolitics.
In Syria, Iran’s investment in the Assad regime prior to its ousting on December 8, 2024, demonstrated the strategic importance of Iran’s leadership role within the so-called “axis of resistance” against Israel. Iran, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and allied militias such as Hezbollah, entrenched itself militarily, providing logistical, financial, and advisory support to bolster Assad’s forces. This effort allowed Iran to attempt to establish an open and corridor from Tehran to Beirut, facilitating the transfer of arms and personnel to enhance its regional capabilities. Israel, perceiving this entrenchment as an existential threat, conducted hundreds of airstrikes targeting Iranian military installations, weapons storage facilities, and logistical routes within Syria. These actions form part of Israel’s strategic “campaign between wars,” designed to undermine Iran’s military foothold without escalating into a broader conflict. This competition in Syria prior to the collapse of the regime highlighted how the Israeli Iranian rivalry shaped the broader civil war, with both states leveraging the conflict to advance their respective regional objectives.
Similarly, in Iraq, the Israeli Iranian competition is pronounced. Iran wields considerable influence through its support of Shia militias, many of which are consolidated under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). These militias function as extensions of Iran’s strategic objectives, counterbalancing U.S. and Israeli influence in the region while advancing Tehran’s geopolitical ambitions. On the other hand, Israel has conducted targeted strikes on PMF installations and weapon transfers, alleging their use in facilitating Iranian arms shipments to Syria and Lebanon. These strikes, though limited in scale, illustrate Israel’s intent to disrupt Iran’s transnational networks. The rivalry in Iraq demonstrates how local conflicts are intricately tied to the broader competition for regional hegemony between these two powers.
In Yemen, Iran’s involvement with the Houthi rebels exemplifies its broader strategy to extend its influence across the Middle East. Supported by Tehran, the Houthis have demonstrated their ability to disrupt international shipping lanes, which are vital for global trade, thus providing Iran with a powerful tool to exert pressure on regional and global rivals. This indirect form of conflict allows Tehran to challenge the regional status quo while avoiding direct confrontation. Through such proxy engagements, Iran seeks to reshape the balance of power in the region, leveraging the Houthis to undermine the influence of regional powers and to create instability in an area critical for global commerce. The Houthis, in this context, act as a key instrument in Iran’s regional calculus, facilitating its efforts to counterbalance the influence of adversarial states without direct military engagement.
The use of proxies allows Iran to project power and expand its strategic reach while avoiding direct confrontation with Israel. Conversely, Israel’s countermeasures, including targeted strikes on Iranian assets and the cultivation of alliances with regional powers such as the UAE and Bahrain, illustrate its strategy to counterbalance Iranian influence. These dynamics create a volatile and interconnected security environment where localized conflicts are amplified by the overarching geopolitical rivalry between Israel and Iran.
The October 7 Attacks: Fragmentation and Escalation
The October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel constitute one of the most transformative events in recent Middle Eastern history, radically altering the trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and catalyzing a wave of regional instability. Orchestrated by Hamas, the assault began with an unprecedented infiltration of Israeli territory via rocket barrages and coordinated ground incursions. This attack, which targeted Israeli military installations and civilian communities, resulted in the deaths of over 1,400 Israelis and the abduction of over 250 hostages. In response, Israel launched a massive military campaign against Gaza, with relentless airstrikes that devastated civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, residential areas, power facilities, most of its schools and all of its universities. More than 50,000 Palestinians, including tens of thousands of women and children, were killed, while over two million were displaced in what has been described as one of the worst humanitarian crises in Gaza’s history. This escalation underscored the both cyclical brutality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its worst eruption since the Nakba, reigniting debates about international law, proportionality, and the efficacy of military solutions in resolving longstanding disputes.
The consequences of this attack reverberated far beyond Gaza, as the conflict quickly engulfed neighboring states and re-ignited conflicts along existing geopolitical fault lines. In Lebanon, Hezbollah capitalized on the situation by escalating hostilities along the Israeli Lebanese border. The group launched extensive rocket barrages and coordinated attacks on Israeli outposts, to which Israel responded with punitive airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon. These hostilities caused widespread destruction and heightened fears of a broader regional war, drawing Lebanon into a conflict it could ill afford given its ongoing economic collapse. Similarly, Syria found itself implicated as Israel expanded its military operations to target Iranian-affiliated militias and logistical supply routes on Syrian territory. The strikes on Damascus and Aleppo airports, allegedly used for arms shipments to Hezbollah, further eroded Syria’s already crippled infrastructure, exacerbating its humanitarian crisis. These developments underscored the regional spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the fragile security landscape of the region.
The conflict’s expansion also drew in the Houthis in Yemen, adding an unprecedented maritime dimension to the crisis. Aligning themselves with Iran-backed regional actors, the Houthis launched ballistic missile and drone strikes against Israeli targets, including an attempted attack on Eilat. More significantly, they disrupted critical shipping routes in the Red Sea, targeting hundreds of commercial vessels and seriously disrupting global maritime supply chains and trade. The United States swiftly deployed naval assets to secure these waters, underscoring the global stakes of the conflict and the intersection of regional instability with international economic security. This maritime dimension introduced a new layer of complexity to the conflict, linking it to broader questions of global economic recovery after COVID and ongoing great power competition.
Challenges and the Path Forward Under the Second Trump Administration
Since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, the United States has pursued a mercurial strategy toward Iran, shaped by shifting administrations and geopolitical developments. Under President Obama, the JCPOA was a cornerstone of a U.S. foreign policy aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy and sanctions relief. However, President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, implementing a “maximum pressure” campaign marked by sweeping sanctions designed to isolate Iran economically and politically. The Biden administration sought to revive the agreement through indirect negotiations, but efforts ultimately faltered amid mutual distrust, regional tensions, suboptimally timed elections in both countries, and Iran’s expanding nuclear activities.
As of early 2025, reports indicate that President Trump’s renewed maximum pressure campaign combines diplomatic efforts with a heightened military stance, signaling a firm U.S. commitment to addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and preparing future attacks. Alongside quiet diplomatic talks hosted in Oman to explore the prospects of a new nuclear framework, the U.S. has escalated its military posture. The U.S. has launched severe strikes against Houthi forces, sending a clear message to Iran about the potential consequences of continued regional destabilization. Furthermore, B-52 bombers were deployed to the Diego Garcia base, located only 3,000 miles from Iran, positioned as a powerful deterrent and ready to strike should Iran fail to engage constructively in negotiations or persist with its nuclear advancements.
Amid the escalating tensions in the Middle East and the enduring rivalry between Iran and Israel, the United States faces a critical challenge: how to prevent a full-scale regional conflict while safeguarding its long-term strategic interests. Iran’s expanding nuclear program, its support for regional proxy forces, and the weakening of diplomatic frameworks such as the JCPOA have contributed to a volatile environment that threatens not only U.S. allies but also the broader stability of the region. At the same time, unilateral pressure campaigns have proven insufficient to alter Iran’s behavior or ensure sustainable security.
Therefore, the United States should pursue a carefully calibrated and sequenced reengagement strategy with Iran, beginning with the urgent task of reducing military tensions and culminating in a durable agreement that prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This strategy should open with discreet diplomatic outreach—ideally facilitated by trusted intermediaries such as Oman—focused on mutual confidence-building measures, including the establishment of a deconfliction mechanism in the Gulf and a mutual restraint on provocative actions by Iranian proxies and Israeli strikes. Building on this initial thaw, Washington should initiate broader negotiations that not only revive the objectives of the JCPOA but expand upon them to address the deficiencies that JCPOA detractors had always decried such as ballistic missile development and the destabilizing support of non-state actors. As part of these talks, the United States should offer calibrated sanctions relief tied to Iran’s verifiable commitments to halt high-level uranium enrichment and grant full transparency to international inspectors.
The process should ultimately lead to a comprehensive, enforceable new agreement that guarantees Iran will not develop nuclear weapons or pose a threat to its neighbors, while simultaneously allowing for the lifting of remaining sanctions and supporting Iran’s gradual reintegration into the global economy. This approach, grounded in both deterrence and diplomacy, offers the most sustainable path to reducing tensions, enhancing regional security, and advancing U.S. strategic interests.
While ideological imperatives remain potent, history demonstrates that economic necessities and geopolitical realities can temper radical policies when appropriately managed. The second Trump presidency, utilizing coercive diplomacy coupled with strategic incentives, has the potential to recalibrate the Iran-Israel rivalry away from perpetual hostility and toward a structured détente that serves the broader interests of regional stability.
However, for this diplomatic strategy to succeed, Israel must take a crucial step: recognizing a Palestinian state or at least creating a viable pathway to one. The Palestinian issue remains a the most important point of contention to all regional actors, that could hinder mediational efforts between Israel and Iran. Should Israel recognize Palestinian sovereignty or at least include it in a clearly articulated vision for a stable region, it would create an opportunity for the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which has conditioned the normalization of relations with Israel on the recognition of a Palestinian state, to assume a more active and influential role in diplomatic efforts, especially in facilitating dialogue between Israel and Iran. This step could also serve to align U.S. and Gulf Arab interests, enhancing their shared objective of stabilizing the region. Simultaneously, the United States must also play a central role in facilitating these discussions, balancing its security commitments to Israel with its broader interests in stabilizing the Middle East. Washington must prioritize diplomacy, using its influence to encourage restraint from both sides and pushing for a long-term solution that addresses the underlying issues of security, nuclear proliferation, and regional hegemony, while also giving the Gulf states the leverage they need to mediate the Israeli Iranian rivalry effectively.
The most viable path forward lies in a multilateral approach that brings together Israel, Iran, the Gulf Arab states, and the United States. While undeniably complex and fraught with challenges, such a framework offers the most promising avenue to de-escalate tensions and avert further conflict in a region already scarred by the enduring consequences of instability. It is only through a concerted and collaborative effort that the Middle East can hope to navigate this intricate geopolitical landscape, ultimately paving the way toward a more stable and peaceful future.
