Dipak Kurmi
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
The relationship between Israel and Iran is among the most persistent and multifaceted hostilities in modern geopolitics. While much of the contemporary narrative revolves around nuclear tensions, proxy wars, and ideological antagonism, this bitter rivalry is the result of decades of historical transformation, shifting alliances, and deep-rooted enmity forged in the crucible of revolution and regional upheaval. At the heart of the conflict lie contrasting worldviews—Zionist nationalism and revolutionary Shiite Islamism—locked in a zero-sum struggle for influence and legitimacy in the Middle East.
From Partners to Enemies: The Pre-Revolution Alignment
In the early decades after Israel’s establishment in 1948, its relationship with Iran was surprisingly cooperative. Under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran—though a predominantly Muslim country—saw strategic merit in aligning with Israel. Shared geopolitical concerns, particularly Arab nationalism and the expanding reach of Soviet communism, bound the two states in a pragmatic, if discreet, partnership. The alliance, built largely on arms deals, oil exports, and intelligence sharing, enabled both countries to bolster their security amidst regional hostility. This fragile yet functional cooperation laid a foundation for what could have evolved into a rare regional understanding between a Muslim-majority state and the Jewish state.
1979: A Revolution Rewrites Regional Reality
This equilibrium was abruptly shattered by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The overthrow of the Shah and the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini transformed Iran from a pro-Western monarchy into an ideologically charged Islamic Republic. In Khomeini’s worldview, Israel represented not merely a political adversary but a symbol of Western imperialism and colonial injustice in the Muslim world. Declaring Israel the “Zionist regime”, Iran severed diplomatic ties immediately and began vocally supporting the Palestinian cause, calling for the dismantling of Israel.
This ideological reorientation did more than sever diplomatic lines; it introduced an element of existential conflict. Iran’s revolutionary leadership made anti-Zionism a core pillar of its foreign policy, merging theological conviction with regional ambition. The rejection of Israel’s right to exist became not just a political position but a revolutionary imperative, deeply embedding hostility into Iran’s state identity.
Proxy Wars: The New Battlefield
Though direct warfare between Israel and Iran has been largely avoided, their animosity has manifested in bloody proxy conflicts across the region. Chief among Iran’s strategic proxies is Hezbollah—a Shiite militant and political group based in Lebanon. Formed in the early 1980s with Iranian funding, arms, and training, Hezbollah was designed to be the frontline force against Israel. It engaged in persistent guerilla warfare and rocket attacks, culminating in the 2006 Lebanon War, which caused immense destruction but failed to yield a clear victor. For Israel, Hezbollah remains a potent threat on its northern border, acting as both a deterrent and a launchpad for Iranian influence.
In Syria, Iran’s steadfast support for President Bashar al-Assad during the civil war has brought Iranian Revolutionary Guard units and allied militias dangerously close to Israel’s border. Israeli airstrikes have targeted these Iranian entrenchments repeatedly, aiming to disrupt weapons transfers to Hezbollah and forestall a permanent Iranian military presence.
Meanwhile, Iran’s support for Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza has added another layer to the confrontation. These groups regularly launch rockets into Israeli territory, provoking retaliatory strikes that perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. In Yemen and Iraq too, Iranian proxies engage in conflicts that, while not directly involving Israel, contribute to a regional atmosphere of instability where Israeli and Iranian interests inevitably collide.
The Nuclear Flashpoint
No dimension of the Israel-Iran conflict carries graver consequences than the nuclear issue. For Israel, the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential nightmare. The threat is not merely theoretical: Israeli officials believe that nuclear capability would embolden Iran to act more aggressively—directly or via proxies—while simultaneously deterring any effective Israeli response. This perceived imbalance has led Israel to adopt a doctrine of preemption.
In practice, this doctrine has translated into covert operations, including alleged sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities, such as the Stuxnet cyberattack, and the high-profile assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists. These actions are designed to delay, disrupt, and discourage Iranian nuclear advancement.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), brokered between Iran and world powers, was seen by many as a diplomatic milestone. Yet Israel condemned it as dangerously inadequate, arguing that it allowed Iran to retain its nuclear infrastructure and failed to address its ballistic missile program or its regional adventurism. Israel lobbied intensely for its annulment, and under President Donald Trump, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018. This move, applauded by Israel, reignited sanctions and escalated tensions as Iran resumed uranium enrichment and curtailed international monitoring.
The War of Words and Shadows
While military operations dominate headlines, a subtler form of confrontation plays out through rhetoric and psychological warfare. Iranian leaders frequently refer to Israel in apocalyptic terms, denying its legitimacy and calling for its annihilation. This isn’t merely political grandstanding—it’s a deliberate tactic to solidify domestic support, appeal to regional allies, and maintain ideological purity.
Israel, in turn, responds with equally charged warnings, emphasizing its readiness to take unilateral military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Prime ministerial speeches, intelligence leaks, and military drills all reinforce a posture of vigilance. Both nations engage in covert naval confrontations, cyberattacks, espionage, and misinformation campaigns. This war of shadows sustains a perpetual state of alert, draining resources and narrowing the space for diplomacy.
The Abraham Accords: A
Strategic Realignment
Amidst this tension, the Middle East witnessed a seismic shift with the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020. Israel’s normalisation of relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco reflected a realignment of regional priorities. These agreements were less about peace with Israel and more about a shared interest in countering Iran’s growing influence.
For Iran, the accords were a strategic setback, further isolating it diplomatically and exposing it to a region increasingly willing to cooperate with Israel on intelligence, defence, and economic development. The cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states, backed by U.S. military support and arms deals, represents an informal coalition that threatens Iran’s regional calculus. It underscores how Iran’s ideological war against Israel has, paradoxically, strengthened Israel’s regional standing.
Fragile Future and
Persistent Perils
The future of Israel-Iran relations appears grim. Entrenched ideologies, militarised proxies, and unresolved nuclear tensions point toward continued hostility. The lack of diplomatic channels, coupled with mutual mistrust, makes miscalculation a constant risk. A single airstrike, cyberattack, or border skirmish could spiral into a broader conflict involving multiple actors and devastating consequences.
Internal politics in both countries further complicate the prospects for peace. Iran remains dominated by hardliners who view compromise with Israel as betrayal, while Israeli politics oscillate between hawkish and moderate leaderships, with security concerns dominating public discourse. Yet diplomacy remains the only viable alternative to catastrophe. A comprehensive agreement that addresses Iran’s nuclear ambitions, missile development, and regional activities is imperative but difficult. Without such an accord, the region will remain perched on the precipice, with every proxy clash or verbal threat risking conflagration.
The Israel-Iran conflict is more than a bilateral rivalry—it is a defining feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics with global ramifications. Born from revolution, sustained by ideology, and exacerbated by regional proxy wars and nuclear brinkmanship, it represents a volatile fault line that could fracture at any moment. While diplomacy has occasionally offered hope, the path forward remains treacherous. Unless both nations and the international community commit to breaking the cycle of hostility, the Middle East will continue to live under the long shadow of a war that has not yet begun but has already cost far too much.