By Dr Majid Khan (Melbourne) & Uzair Ahmed Tahir (Islamabad):
The recent Israeli strikes on Iranian military leadership, most notably Operation “Rising Lion” signal a dangerous and irreversible shift in the regional security architecture of the Middle East. No longer confined to covert operations, sabotage, or proxy warfare, Israel has now adopted a direct, overt, and uncompromising military posture against Iran. This bold move represents the establishment of a “new normal”; a paradigm in which geographic sanctity is no longer respected, escalation ladders are shortened, and the rules of engagement are rewritten.
The scope and intensity of Operation Rising Lion were unprecedented. Over 200 Israeli fighter jets penetrated deep into Iranian airspace, targeting high-value military assets, nuclear infrastructure, and the upper echelon of Iran’s military leadership, including General Hossein Salami and General Mohammad Bagheri. Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility and several missile bases were severely damaged. This was not merely a tactical strike—it was a strategic decapitation aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear program and deterring its regional ambitions.
For Israel, the justification lies in preemption. From its vantage point, Iran’s nuclear advancements, already enriching uranium up to near weapons-grade purity; coupled with growing coordination with regional proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, represent an existential threat. The attack sends a clear message: no part of Iran’s territory is off-limits, and no individual orchestrating aggression against Israel is safe. This recalibration reflects an Israeli strategy of high-risk deterrence, underpinned by intelligence dominance and air superiority.
But this redefinition of deterrence carries immense risks. Iran’s response, though initially limited to drone and proxy strikes, may evolve. The Iranian regime, now under immense domestic and geopolitical pressure, may calculate that restraint is unsustainable. Calls for retribution have intensified, and Iran has appealed to the UN Security Council, casting the Israeli operation as an act of war. While the regime’s conventional capabilities have been dented, its asymmetric potential, through proxies embedded across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen; remains potent.
This direct confrontation marks a departure from decades of strategic ambiguity and managed escalation. The long-standing shadow war has now erupted into open conflict. The most immediate risk lies in regional spillover. Iran’s allies, such as Hezbollah, may view Israeli strikes as a red line, compelling a response. Iraqi militias aligned with Tehran have already declared their intent to engage. The Gaza front, though relatively quiet, could ignite if Hamas sees an opportunity to join a broader confrontation. The potential for multi-front conflict is now real and rising.
Internationally, the reaction has been marked by both concern and complicity. While the United States has called for restraint, it has simultaneously endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself. This tacit support emboldens Israel’s strategic calculus. Meanwhile, European actors find themselves alarmed by the potential economic fallout. Disruption in Iran’s energy sector and fears of wider regional instability have already triggered spikes in oil prices. Analysts warn of a stagflation scenario reminiscent of the 1970s, with energy shocks destabilizing already fragile economies in Europe and Asia.
The nuclear dimension exacerbates the crisis. Iran, under scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has been officially notified for non-compliance with inspection protocols and enrichment limits. This defiance, coupled with the Israeli strikes, may push Tehran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions, not just for deterrence but as a demonstration of resolve. The path to weaponization, long a red line for Israel, could become Tehran’s chosen course if it perceives that military pressure is the only language being spoken.
In this climate, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks, that “Iran should make a deal now before it’s too late”; underscore the volatile policy disconnect. While intended as a warning, the statement may be interpreted in Tehran as further evidence of Washington’s alignment with Israeli aggression. Moreover, the cancellation of planned Oman talks between the U.S. and Iran suggests that diplomatic off-ramps are narrowing rapidly.
The implications of this “new normal” extend far beyond the Middle East. In Europe, fears of energy insecurity and refugee spillovers are growing. China, heavily dependent on Iranian oil, now faces the prospect of strategic instability along its Belt and Road Initiative corridors. Russia, though rhetorically supporting Iran, is unlikely to offer direct military assistance, but may use the crisis to drive a wedge between the West and its Middle Eastern partners. Meanwhile, global nonproliferation norms are being tested as regional actors, especially Saudi Arabia; reconsider their own nuclear postures in response to Iran’s trajectory.
The psychological impact of these developments is also critical. In Israel, the strikes bolster a narrative of strength, national unity, and operational reach. In Iran, they are a profound humiliation, undermining the credibility of the IRGC and raising uncomfortable questions about internal security breaches. Both governments now face domestic pressures to maintain their respective stances. In Israel, a climbdown is politically unviable. In Iran, inaction risks delegitimizing the regime.
Compounding the crisis is the regional perception of abandonment by global powers. The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE; have long walked a tightrope between quiet rapprochement with Iran and strategic alignment with Israel and the U.S. But as the region veers toward conflict, their room to maneuver shrinks. The specter of Houthi retaliation against Gulf oil infrastructure, or Hezbollah’s expansion of hostilities into Syria and Lebanon, underscores the fragility of regional stability.
This broader geopolitical realignment, Israel’s normalization with Arab states under the Abraham Accords, Iran’s deepening ties with China and Russia, and the fragmentation of U.S. diplomatic leadership; creates a combustible environment where conflicts are no longer containable and alliances are increasingly transactional. As regional actors hedge their bets and reassess their security calculus, the potential for miscalculation grows exponentially.
The IAEA’s formal censure of Iran, coupled with Trump’s aggressive posturing and the visible erosion of arms control frameworks, signals a dangerous vacuum of international leadership. With diplomacy sidelined and military actions normalized, the Middle East is inching closer to a tipping point where deterrence collapses into open warfare. The likelihood of a full-scale conflict involving multiple state and non-state actors is higher than at any time in recent history.
In essence, what has emerged is a volatile, post-deterrence environment. The Israeli-Iranian confrontation is no longer a shadow war, it is an evolving conventional conflict with nuclear undertones and global ramifications. The new normal is not sustainable. It is a landscape of preemptive doctrines, proxy instability, and diminished diplomatic space. Without urgent and sustained international engagement, including pressure on Iran to comply with IAEA mandates and on Israel to temper its military ambitions; the region risks sliding into an uncontrollable conflict.
This moment demands strategic clarity. It requires more than condemnation or symbolic diplomacy. A credible, enforceable framework to contain the Israeli-Iranian confrontation must be developed—one that addresses nuclear non-proliferation, regional security guarantees, and the cessation of support for armed proxies. Failing this, the world may soon confront the unthinkable: a nuclear flashpoint in a region already defined by volatility.
