Tracing the Iran-Israel Conflict

In June 2025, the long-simmering tensions between Israel and Iran erupted into full-scale open conflict. No longer confined to proxy skirmishes, cyber sabotage, or covert assassinations, the rivalry ignited with Israeli airstrikes deep inside Iranian territory and a retaliatory barrage of missiles and drones from Iran. This war, steeped in history, ideology, and geopolitics, threatens to destabilise the Middle East and, by extension, the world.

History: Roots of decade-old conflict

The Israel–Iran conflict isn't just about borders or missiles—it's about identity, ideology, and survival.

1979 Iranian Revolution: The Islamic Revolution transformed Iran from a Western-aligned monarchy into a theocratic republic. With cries of “Death to Israel,” the new regime severed diplomatic ties and established itself as the regional counterforce to Israel’s existence.

Proxy Warfare: Iran created and armed a network of regional militias, the “Axis of Resistance”—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Islamic Jihad groups in Gaza as well as the most detrimental Hamas and the October 7 attack which led to a full fledged war. Israel responded with an intelligence-heavy military doctrine aimed at disrupting Iranian influence across Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

The Nuclear Question: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology, which it claims is for peaceful purposes, has been viewed by Israel and its Western allies as a veiled path to nuclear weapons. Israel’s red line has always been clear: Iran must not acquire nuclear arms.

The Shadow War: Over the past decade, Mossad operations in Iran have included cyberattacks (like the Stuxnet virus), targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, and sabotage of enrichment facilities. This covert war continued until it exploded into full view in 2025.

What’s the conflict really about?

1. Existential Threats

Israel sees a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. Prime Minister Netanyahu has long warned the world that Tehran seeks not just regional power, but Israel’s destruction. Iran, for its part, views Israel as an illegitimate colonial project and has embedded resistance to its existence into its revolutionary identity.

2. The Weaponisation of Proxies

Iran’s strategy involves surrounding Israel with hostile forces—Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south, and IRGC militias in Syria. Israel's 2023–2024 airstrikes in Syria and Lebanon were aimed at disrupting these efforts, but they also increased tensions with Iran.

3. Nuclear Progress

By early 2025, intelligence reports indicated Iran was enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels. Mossad reportedly uncovered evidence of clandestine weapons work in new underground facilities near Isfahan and Natanz, prompting Israel’s decision to strike.

4. A Doctrine of Pre-emption

Israel adheres to the “Begin Doctrine,” which justifies preventive strikes on hostile states pursuing weapons of mass destruction. “When someone says they want to destroy you, believe them,” Netanyahu warned in a press briefing just before the attacks.

Recent Developments: June 2025 The Operation Rising Lion begins

●       Israel hit more than 100 major targets in Iran on 13 June 2025, including nuclear facilities and missile sites, and killed senior military commanders and scientists. Satellite imagery showed significant damage to areas of the Natanz nuclear site, Iran’s most significant nuclear enrichment facility, but the fuel enrichment plant appeared to be undamaged. A nuclear research centre in Isfahan was also hit.

●       Among those killed were senior military figures – including the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri, and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Gen Hossein Salami – as well as at least six Iranian nuclear scientists.

●       Israeli strikes continued over the weekend and into Monday, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) targeted air defences around Tehran and claimed they had gained control of the skies over the capital. Israel’s military said it had hit “more than 80” targets in Tehran since Saturday, including the defence ministry headquarters and missile launchers used to strike Israel and defend Iran. The Iranian oil ministry said Israel had targeted two fuel depots in the Tehran area. Iran has accused Israel of hitting civilian areas in Tehran, with the health ministry reporting that Israeli strikes had killed 224 people since 13 June.

●       Iran has launched several waves of missiles at Israel since 13 June, with Israeli authorities saying at least 14 people had been killed since Friday and 390 injured. Rescuers and medics said a strike late on 14 June destroyed a three-storey building in the town of Tamra, killing four women, and six people were killed and at least 180 injured at the site of a missile strike in Bat Yam, near Tel Aviv. Those numbers were set to rise on 16 June after Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv and Haifa, with fires being seen at a power plant in the northern city.

Among those killed were senior military figures – including the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri, and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Gen Hossein Salami – as well as at least six Iranian nuclear scientists.

Israeli strikes continued over the 14th and 15th of June and on 16th June, as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) targeted air defences around Tehran and claimed they had gained control of the skies over the capital. Israel’s military said it had hit “more than 80” targets in Tehran since Saturday, including the defence ministry headquarters and missile launchers used to strike Israel and defend Iran. The Iranian oil ministry said Israel had targeted two fuel depots in the Tehran area. Iran has accused Israel of hitting civilian areas in Tehran, with the health ministry reporting that Israeli strikes had killed 224 people since Friday.

Iran has launched several waves of missiles at Israel since 13th June, with Israeli authorities saying at least 14 people had been killed since 13 June and 390 injured. Rescuers and medics said a strike late on 14 June destroyed a three-storey building in the town of Tamra, killing four women, and six people were killed and at least 180 injured at the site of a missile strike in Bat Yam, near Tel Aviv. Those numbers were set to rise on 16 June after Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv and Haifa, with fires being seen burning at a power plant in the northern city.

Iran’s Missile Arsenal and Israeli Defence Penetration

Iran responded with several waves of missile attacks using its arsenal of precision-guided and medium-range ballistic missiles, including Fattah-1 hypersonic, and two stage Sejjil missiles. The scale and coordination of the missile strikes managed to overwhelm parts of Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defence systems. Key urban and strategic locations in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and central Israel suffered significant damage.

Israel’s Multi-Layered Defence System vs Iran’s Advanced Missile Threat

The Israeli multi-layered defence system — comprising the Iron Dome, Arrow-2, Arrow-3, David's Sling, and THAAD — was primarily developed and optimised to intercept short-range, conventional rockets and missiles commonly used by groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other hostile non-state actors in the region.

However, Iran’s missile program presents a different level of threat. It possesses a sophisticated ballistic missile arsenal, which includes:

1.     Hypersonic missiles

2.     Missiles equipped with MIRVs (Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles)

3.     Submunition warheads

Submunition Systems: A Tactical Shift

Recently, Iran deployed submunition-based missile systems, where the main warhead disperses multiple smaller explosive units designed to impact a wide area — typically covering a 16 km circumference. These differ from MIRVs, which direct individual warheads along separate trajectories toward distinct targets.

Each submunition reportedly carries around 2.5 kg of explosives, with a single missile delivering over 20 individual bomblets, creating a saturation effect that challenges even the most advanced missile interception systems.

The Hypersonic Challenge

The threat is compounded by hypersonic and supersonic missiles, which can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5. These drastically reduce response time — giving Israeli defence systems a mere 6 to 7 minutes to detect, track, and intercept incoming threats, making effective countermeasures incredibly difficult during high-intensity barrages.

The Cost of Defence

Israel is reportedly spending approximately $280.5 million per night during peak defence operations — an immense financial burden on its military budget. This growing cost has intensified Israel’s calls for increased support from the West, particularly from the United States, as it continues to defend its territory against evolving and complex missile threats.

Length and Scale of the War: Beyond an Escalatory Skirmish

This is not a fleeting episode of military escalation. Iran is not Palestine or Ukraine, its military capacity, regional network of allies, and nuclear ambitions elevate the threat to a different strategic plane. Israel’s aggressive campaign, shaped by the vengeance-fuelled experience in Gaza, has encountered a state adversary with real strategic depth. Heated rhetoric from both sides, including Iran’s threats to expand the war to Western targets and Israel’s warnings of regime change in Tehran, underscores the potential for a prolonged and wide-ranging conflict. This could evolve into a full-scale regional war unlike any seen in recent decades.

Economic Impact of the Conflict

The economic reverberations of the conflict are being felt both domestically and internationally. Israel’s military operations have been financially demanding. Missile interception systems, air defence operations, and civilian emergency response have required significant deployment of resources. Civilian life was temporarily halted in many parts of the country, causing commercial disruptions. Nevertheless, Israeli financial markets showed short-term resilience, with core indices rebounding after initial dips and the Shekel gaining modestly. In Iran, the conflict has compounded an already strained economic environment. The Iranian Rial has continued to depreciate. Inflationary pressures have intensified, particularly around fuel and essential commodities. Infrastructure damage and financial uncertainty have led to hoarding, long queues at petrol stations, and public unrest.

Globally, oil markets have responded sharply. With fears of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, crude prices surged, potentially crossing $100 per barrel. Airlines rerouted flights over conflict zones, increasing operational costs and impacting global air travel and cargo networks. Concerns over prolonged disruptions in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf have also started affecting global shipping and insurance premiums.

Impact on Indian Investment and Strategic Projects

India’s stakes in the region are not merely economic but strategic. Several critical investment and infrastructure projects have come under threat. The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a flagship initiative linking India with Central Asia via Iran, faces uncertainty due to security risks and logistical disruptions. The Chabahar Port India’s long-envisioned maritime gateway to Afghanistan and Eurasia where more than 500 million dollar of Indian investment is at stake.  Additionally, Adani Group’s emerging logistics operations in the Haifa Port have also suffered setbacks along with the shipping getting halted, The broader India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) has been cast into strategic doubt amid the intensifying conflict.

U.S. Involvement and World Response

The United States has been central to the evolving situation, although Washington initially distanced itself from Israel’s offensive, it continues providing military assistance to Israel in the form of intelligence sharing and missile interception coordination. At the same time, Washington has emphasised the need for restraint, reportedly blocking more extreme retaliatory plans from Israel.

Other global actors have taken varied positions. The G7 expressed concern over the escalation but affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. European countries such as Germany and France issued calls for calm and emphasised humanitarian considerations. Other oil-producing Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have publicly urged that both sides exercise restraint. Increased security around their own key oil terminals has been put in place.  Russia and China urged de-escalation and a return to diplomatic dialogue, indicating concern over broader regional destabilisation.

Russia’s Warning on Nuclear Power Plants

Russia, which jointly manages Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, has issued stern warnings against any military action that might damage civilian nuclear infrastructure. Russian officials likened potential damage to Bushehr to a “second Chernobyl,” warning that any fallout could endanger the region and potentially drag Russia itself into the conflict.  

Effects on India and Preparedness

India, reliant on Middle Eastern energy and with a large diaspora in the region, has been significantly affected. Rising crude prices have pressured the rupee and expanded concerns over the current account deficit. The rupee fell to its lowest since mid-March amid risk aversion. Brent crude surged 9%, while Indian oil majors BPCL, HPCL, and Indian Oil saw 3.5% stock losses. Trade disruptions through the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf have raised freight and insurance costs. The India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, still in its early stages, faces strategic uncertainties.

India’s evacuation effort, Operation Sindhu, successfully repatriated over a hundred nationals from Iran. Diplomatically, New Delhi has adopted a balanced stance—advocating de-escalation while preparing for strategic contingencies.

The Road Ahead: Risks and Possibilities

Escalation remains a serious risk. Iran-aligned proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq may open new fronts against Israeli or Western targets. Any strike on global shipping or closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger international panic. The current pause offers a narrow window for mediation—potentially led by Qatar or Oman. However, mutual distrust and domestic political constraints may inhibit progress.

For India, this conflict highlights the need to diversify energy imports, bolster maritime security, and strengthen logistical resilience. It also underscores the importance of diplomatic readiness and robust evacuation protocols in volatile regions.

The fragility of peace in the Middle East is again exposed, along with the far-reaching consequences of regional wars. Beyond the battlefield, the conflict has triggered economic turbulence, humanitarian crises, and diplomatic reconfigurations. The involvement of global powers, including the United States, points to the high stakes involved. For India, it serves as a test of strategic foresight and operational preparedness. While a full-scale war may still be avoided, the conflict has already reshaped threat perceptions and strategic calculations across the region and beyond.

The road ahead will depend on whether diplomacy can triumph over escalation. For now, this idea seems delusional.

Edited By:

Rudraksh Aneja

Authored By:

Shambhavi Shree & Muskan Kumar