The Endless War Between Iran and Israel on the Verge of Reigniting
The Endless War Between Iran and Israel on the Verge of Reigniting
According to a report by Irangate News Agency, more than two months after the end of the 12-day military conflict between Iran and Israel, the security outlook of the region has not only failed to become calmer but has also become worryingly more complex.
While the temporary ceasefire remains in place, signs of both sides preparing for a new round of tensions are emerging.
Statements from political and military officials of Iran and Israel, analyses by international observers, and behind-the-scenes diplomatic movements all emphasize the reality that the region is on the brink of a new and perhaps decisive phase of the crisis.
This analytical report examines the backgrounds, objectives, and strategic considerations of both sides, as well as the potential outlooks for the coming months.
The key question is whether the region will move towards containing the tension and returning to a diplomatic path, or if we will witness a repeat of conflict, this time on a larger scale.
As time passes since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in mid-June, contrary to expectations for reduced tensions, signs of renewed conflict are becoming visible.
Although the temporary ceasefire provided a breathing space for both sides, the atmosphere remains tense, and analysts predict that there is a possibility of new conflict between the two countries sometime between late August and the end of the year.
The feeling that the war remains unfinished is reflected in the political and security discourse of both sides.
Some regional officials believe that what happened in June was only the first chapter of a longer scenario. Statements from Iranian military officials also indicate that Tehran views the situation not as a ceasefire but as a war in suspension.
This approach shows that there is a kind of permanent alertness at the military levels of the Islamic Republic, and the possibility of returning to conflict in the short term is not ruled out.
On the other hand, Israel, despite conducting extensive operations and dealing blows to Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, does not seem satisfied with the final results. Tehran has not only been able to resist but also maintained its readiness for reconstruction through its technical and organizational capacities.
Although the human and material losses have been heavy for Iran, there is evidence that Tehran still possesses part of its enriched uranium reserves and the technology necessary to continue its nuclear path.
This has placed Israel in a strategic dilemma: how to prevent Iran from returning to a position of power without resorting to a full-scale, costly war.
In this situation, Israel’s options are primarily twofold: either compel Iran to voluntarily suspend and withdraw its nuclear program under international supervision or induce a change in Iran’s political structure through intense military pressure.
The first option is unacceptable to Iranian elites for several reasons. The experiences of countries like Iraq and Libya have reinforced the perception among Iranian decision-makers that any retreat could be a prelude to internal destabilization and regime overthrow.
Therefore, even if there is a relative willingness to negotiate at some levels, deep mistrust towards Western intentions has effectively rendered this process ineffective.
On the other hand, the scenario of maximum pressure and military attack is not without cost for Israel. A new war with Iran would unfold in a different context than in the past. Today’s international environment is less prepared to accept a new major conflict in the Middle East, and there are increasing concerns about its human, economic, and regional consequences.
Arab and regional countries, which previously took stances against Iran in some cases, are now worried about the repetition of costly and destabilizing conflicts and fear that the flames of war might spread to their borders.
In such conditions, the key question for Tehran is whether to enter the negotiation cycle at the brink of a new crisis and buy time, or gamble and engage in a broader military confrontation. A confrontation that might come at the cost of heavy casualties and destruction but with the aim of deterring the opponent and maintaining internal military and political cohesion.
It seems that part of Iran’s political and military leadership considers this scenario conceivable, although its risks are high.
Israel also faces serious challenges. The country’s history of limited attacks against Iranian targets in Syria, although accompanied by tactical military successes, has failed to translate these victories into strategic gains.
Moreover, heavy military interventions have often entailed significant political costs for Israel at the regional level. This situation complicates the prospect of a decisive strike on Iran. While Israel has the capability to start a war, there is no guarantee of its outcomes or the post-war order.
From this perspective, the current calm is more akin to a temporary and fragile situation than one stemming from agreement or stability—a silence that might be the prelude to a new storm.
With increasing ambiguity in the political and security environment and in the absence of a strong diplomatic initiative, the risk of sliding back into conflict seems more likely than ever.
