From Allies to Adversaries: The Longstanding Proxy War
Once allies till 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, Iran and Israel has become enemies engaged in a long proxy war. Both the countries had been attacking each other’s assets in the region though without claiming any responsibility of the attacks. However, war in Gaza since 07 Oct, 2023 has opened a new chapter in the hostilities between the two countries.
Last October, Hamas attacked the boundary areas of Israel, killing 1,000 people and taking over 250 Israelis hostage. Consequently, Israel launched a war on Gaza against Hamas. Over 40,000 Palestinians have died, and more than 80,000 have sustained injuries. According to the most recent reports, 101 hostages remain in Gaza.
A Timeline of Retaliatory Attacks
Following the Gaza attack, Israel has been unable to rescue all hostages despite widespread destruction. Israel accused Iran and its ally Hezbollah of supporting Hamas’s assault on October 7. In retaliation, both Israel and Iran intensified direct and proxy attacks against each other. Key events include:
- October 26, 2024: Israel launched airstrikes in and around Tehran, Iran’s capital.
- October 1, 2024: Iran fired approximately 180-200 missiles targeting Israeli military installations.
- April 1, 2024: Israel struck an embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 individuals, including eight IRGC officers.
- April 13, 2024: Iran launched its first direct attack on Israel, firing about 300 missiles.
- July 2024: Israel killed a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut; the next day, an explosion in Tehran killed Ismail Haniyeh, a political leader of Hamas.
- September 28, 2024: Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Brig. Gen. Abbas Nilforoushan in Beirut.
- Israeli forces killed Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar in Rafah, Gaza, on October 16, 2024.
- Since September 23, 2024: Israel has conducted ongoing strikes in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah.
- This series of attacks underscores the rapid escalation and intensifying hostilities between the two adversaries.
The Geopolitical Significance of the Israel-Iran Rivalry
The rivalry between Israel and Iran holds immense significance for the world, particularly for the Middle East. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran was a key ally of the United States. It served as a critical foothold for spreading American influence in the region. However, the revolution marked a turning point. It led the U.S. to lose one of its most important partners in the Middle East. Subsequently, the United States strengthened ties with Saudi Arabia, ensuring its strategic and economic presence in the region.
Amid these shifts, Israel emerged as the only strong non-Muslim ally of the U.S. in the Middle East. This solidified Israel’s indispensable role in America’s regional strategy. As a result, the U.S. remains firmly aligned with Israel. This alignment ensures that America’s influence in the Middle East endures. It remains strong, regardless of evolving relations with other nations in the region.
Iran’s Strategic Position and Regional Influence
Iran occupies a pivotal location in the Middle East. It maintains intricate relationships across the region, from Turkey to the Arab nations. It wields significant influence over key countries, particularly Syria, where it supports President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in collaboration with Russia. In Iraq, Iran has expanded its sway following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government. In Yemen, Iran reportedly backs the Houthi rebels, who have targeted Saudi Arabia’s oil fields with missile strikes.
Through its “Axis of Resistance” policy, Iran supports groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Palestine. This bolsters its presence and influence in the region. A map from The Economist vividly illustrates the extent of Iran’s reach and strategic influence across the Middle East.
The U.S., Iran, and the Struggle for Middle Eastern Influence
Following the U.S.’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA in 2018, pressure on Iran has intensified. The JCPOA aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through a nuclear agreement.In response, Iran adopted a “Look East” foreign policy. This policy strengthened ties with global powers like China and Russia to counterbalance U.S. influence. Iran’s growing regional power significantly challenges the U.S.’s presence in the Middle East. As of October 2024, the United States has stationed approximately 40,000 military personnel in the region.
The United States operates military facilities in 19 countries. These include Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the UAE, and Israel. There are additional bases in Djibouti and Turkey. This widespread military footprint highlights America’s commitment to curbing Iran’s regional expansion. With the arrival of Donald Trump for his second term and his new cabinet, once again Middle East has headlines in the USA. It underscores the strategic rivalry between the two nations. This rivalry continues to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. A map by the Council of Foreign Relations highlights the extensive U.S. military presence in the region.
Overview of Iran and Israel’s Military Strengths
Military Manpower Comparison: Iran vs. Israel
According to data from the UK-based think tank IISS, Iran has a significantly larger active military force. The force totals 610,000 personnel. This information is from the Military Balance 2023 report. Iran’s military includes 350,000 personnel in the army. It has 190,000 personnel in the IRGC. The navy has 18,000 personnel. The air force has 37,000 personnel. Air defense includes 15,000 personnel. Iran also has a reserve force of 350,000. In contrast, Israel’s active military strength is 169,500 personnel. Israel’s army has 126,000 personnel. The navy has 9,500 personnel. The air force has 34,000 personnel. However, Israel compensates with a larger reserve force of 465,000, underscoring its emphasis on rapid mobilization during conflicts.
| Iran | Israel | ||
| Active Personnel |  | 610,000 | 169,500 |
| Army |  | 350,000 190,000 in IRGC | 126,000 |
| Navy |  | 18000 | 9500 |
| Air Force |  | 37000 | 34000 |
| Reserved Army |  | 350,000 | 465,000 |
| Battle Tanks |  | 10513 | 400 |
| Artillery guns |  | 6798 | 530 |
| Armored personal carriers |  | 640 | 1190 |
| Helicopters |  | Army – 50 Air Force – 02 IRGC – 5 | Air Force – 43 |
| Combat capable aircraft |  | Airforce – 312 IRGC – 23 | 345 |
| Submarines |  | 17 | 05 |
| Patrols & Coastal combatants |  | 68 | 49 |
| Landing ships |  | 12 | |
| Landing craft |  | 11 | |
| Navy logistics & support equipment | | 18 |
Defense Spending: Iran vs. Israel
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Iran allocated $10.3 billion to its defense budget in 2023. This information was reported in April 2024. Iran’s defense budget is significantly lower than Israel’s defense expenditure. Israel’s defense expenditure in 2023 was $27.5 billion. This disparity highlights the differing defense priorities of the two nations. Israel invests heavily in advanced technology and defense systems. In contrast, Iran focuses on maintaining a large, versatile military force.
Missile Defense: Iron Dome vs. Iran’s Azarakhsh System
Israel relies heavily on its Iron Dome defense system. The system detects incoming projectiles using radar. It intercepts these projectiles with 20 interceptor missiles. The Iron Dome has proven highly effective in downing missiles. These missiles are launched by Hamas and Iran. Around 10 Iron Dome batteries are deployed across the country. In contrast, as of February 2024, Iran has deployed the Azarakhsh infrared detection system, equipped with radar and electro-optic technology.
This mobile system, capable of targeting and detecting projectiles, marks Iran’s step toward enhancing its missile defense capabilities. Both systems serve similar purposes. Israel’s Iron Dome is renowned for its success in intercepting short-range threats. Iran’s Azarakhsh system is a newer technology. The Azarakhsh system is evolving. It is aimed at countering missile threats within Iran’s region.
Ballistic Missiles: Iran’s Arsenal vs. Israel’s Capabilities
According to the Missile Defense Project, Iran possesses ballistic missiles. The project is conducted by the U.S. think tank CSIS. Iran’s missile inventory is diverse. These missiles are medium and short-range. There are 12 different types of these missiles. One of these is the Tondar 69, which has a range of 150 km. Iran also has the Khorramshahr and Sejjil missiles.
These missiles can reach up to 2,000 km. In contrast, Israel’s missile arsenal is more compact. Israel’s arsenal comprises four types of small, medium, and intermediate-range missiles. One of these is the LORA, which has a range of 280 km. Israel also has the Jericho-3 missile. The Jericho-3 is capable of reaching up to 4,800 km. While Iran’s missile inventory is extensive, Israel focuses on precision and advanced technology. This gives Israel significant strategic flexibility in regional defense.
Nuclear Capabilities: Israel’s Arsenal vs. Iran’s Program
The U.S.-based Arms Control Association reports that Israel is believed to possess around 90 nuclear warheads. However, Israel has not officially confirmed this. On the other hand, Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons. Iran has accelerated its nuclear program since the United States unilaterally pulled out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This move has raised concerns about Iran’s potential to develop nuclear capabilities. These concerns have heightened tensions in the region. They have also further complicated the already fraught dynamics between the two nations.
Strategic Advantages
Iran’s Geographical Advantages in Defense
Iran’s vast and diverse geography provides significant defensive advantages, making any military operation against the country a complex challenge. Covering an area of 1,648,195 square kilometers with a coastline stretching 2,440 km, Iran’s terrain includes mountains, deserts, plateaus, and lowlands, all of which offer natural defensive benefits. For instance, the region’s sand and silt can impede the movement of military vehicles, clogging machinery and potentially jamming weapons systems, which can shorten the operational lifespan of equipment.
Additionally, the lack of sizable rivers in Iran means that opposing forces would need to carry substantial water supplies for both personnel and logistics, further complicating any invasion. These factors contribute to the conclusion that potential adversaries must carefully consider the strategic challenges posed by Iran’s difficult terrain before launching any military action.
Iran’s Mastery of Asymmetric Proxy Warfare
Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric proxy warfare in the region, a strategy that has made the United States cautious about engaging in all-out war with the country. Iran’s approach is sophisticated and multi-layered, blending covert operations, proxy forces, and strategic patience to achieve its objectives without unnecessarily escalating conflicts. Utilizing “gray zone” tactics, Iran employs proxies, ambiguity, and calibrated use of force to prolong confrontations and control their tempo, while diversifying its strategies to divide and encircle adversaries.
Iran’s asymmetric warfare exploits its geographical advantages, such as its proximity to the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and uses unconventional methods to create disproportionate impacts. The country’s hybrid warfare capabilities include the use of the IRGC, IRGC-QF, and affiliated militias to conduct regular and irregular warfare, missile strikes, cyber attacks, and information warfare. Through economic manipulation, shaping victorious narratives, and strategic diplomacy aimed at dividing its enemies, Iran works to maintain regional influence while avoiding direct confrontations that could escalate into full-scale conflict.
Israel’s Strategic Edge: Advanced Technology and Elite Forces
Israel’s strategic advantages stem from its highly trained military personnel, cutting-edge technology, and robust intelligence networks, positioning it as one of the most formidable military powers in the Middle East. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are celebrated for their rigorous training, ensuring that soldiers are prepared for diverse combat scenarios with unmatched operational efficiency. This human expertise is complemented by Israel’s state-of-the-art technology, including world-renowned intelligence agencies like Mossad, known for their precision, innovation, and success in conducting high-stakes operations globally.
Israel’s advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, which intercepts short-range rocket threats, and David’s Sling, which counteracts more sophisticated missile systems, form a multilayered shield that significantly mitigates aerial threats. Additionally, Israel’s focus on cyber warfare and unmanned systems innovation enhances its deterrence capabilities, ensuring it maintains a qualitative edge over adversaries and a rapid-response ability to address emerging regional challenges.
Possible Scenarios in a Hypothetical Conflict
Direct Confrontation:
While the chances of a full-scale confrontation between Iran and Israel remain low, Israel has increasingly focused on confronting Hezbollah, which it believes played a role in assisting Hamas during the October 7 attack. To distance Hezbollah’s influence from Hamas, Israel aims to create a buffer zone along its border with Lebanon, protecting itself from potential direct Hezbollah attacks. Israel has already deployed ground forces to engage Hezbollah along the Lebanese border, with the expectation that these efforts will push the group back. However, while Israel is unlikely to launch a full ground invasion of Iran, it may continue using airstrikes and drones to target Hezbollah and Iranian assets in Lebanon and Syria, as demonstrated in previous operations.
Given the strain on Israeli military resources due to ongoing operations in Gaza, any operation in Lebanon is likely to be limited in scope, focused primarily on border defense. Hezbollah, however, is expected to retaliate, potentially with rocket or drone attacks on Israeli territory, though a full ground invasion of Israel remains unlikely. Iran may also offer support to Hezbollah, further complicating the situation. This dynamic suggests that while direct confrontation between Israel and Iran may not escalate, tensions between Israel and Hezbollah are likely to persist with continued skirmishes along the border.
Proxy Wars:
While a direct war between Israel and Iran remains unlikely, the two countries are expected to continue their longstanding proxy conflict, particularly in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Israel is likely to maintain its strategy of targeting strategic sites within these regions, aiming to weaken Iran’s Axis of Resistance, including Hezbollah and other affiliated groups. These actions align with U.S. interests in the Middle East, which seek to curb Iran’s influence and prevent its growing dominance in the region. As both nations have a history of engaging in proxy warfare, it is highly probable that their confrontations will intensify, with a greater focus on inflicting substantial damage to one another’s assets and influence.
This could lead to further destabilization in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, with the potential for heightened clashes as each side looks to strengthen its position and undermine the other’s regional power. The dynamics of these proxy wars could escalate, drawing in additional regional actors and further complicating an already volatile situation.
Cyber Warfare:
Israel and Iran have a long-standing history of engaging in cyber warfare, a trend that has intensified since the October 7 attack. Notably, in April 2024, an Iranian hacking group reportedly targeted Israel’s radar systems, prompting concerns from Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, led by Gaby Portnoy, about the growing frequency of cyber attacks. This follows a pattern of escalating digital conflict between the two nations. Israel and the U.S. have also collaborated extensively on cyber operations against Iran, most famously in the creation of the Stuxnet virus in 2006, which was designed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran, in turn, is believed to have reverse-engineered Stuxnet for its own cyber defense purposes.
As the tension between Israel and Iran continues to rise, it is anticipated that cyber warfare will play a larger role, with both nations likely to intensify their digital attacks. The nature of cyber warfare—often covert and deniable—means that direct responses are unlikely, allowing this conflict to unfold without the same level of public accountability or escalation seen in traditional military engagements.
Role of Alliances and Global Influence
Iran’s Strategic Alliances: A Global and Regional Power Play
Iran’s strategic alliances with global powers such as Russia and China, along with regional actors like Syria, significantly enhance its geopolitical influence and military strength. These partnerships provide Iran with vital economic, political, and military support, helping it counterbalance Western pressures and expand its regional presence. Russia and Iran share a common goal of diminishing U.S. influence in the Middle East, as demonstrated by their cooperation in Syria, where Iranian forces and proxies have worked alongside Russian military assets to support the Assad regime.
Additionally, China’s growing economic and strategic engagement with Iran, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and energy investments, offers Tehran a critical lifeline amid international sanctions. Regionally, Iran’s alliances with Syria and other like-minded actors provide a network of bases for its proxies, extending its influence to the borders of Israel and beyond. These alliances not only strengthen Iran’s asymmetric and conventional military capabilities but also empower it to project power on multiple fronts, securing its position as a central player in both regional and global geopolitics.
Israel’s Strategic Alliances: Strengthening Security through Global and Regional Partnerships
Israel’s alliances with global powers, regional actors, and multilateral organizations significantly bolster its strategic position and military capabilities. The cornerstone of Israel’s security is its enduring partnership with the United States, which provides advanced military technology, intelligence sharing, and substantial financial aid, including funding for cutting-edge defense systems like the Iron Dome. NATO’s support further enhances Israel’s strategic reach through joint training exercises, intelligence cooperation, and mutual interests in combating terrorism and regional instability.
In recent years, Israel has made remarkable strides in regional diplomacy, notably through the Abraham Accords, which have normalized relations with key Arab nations such as the UAE and Bahrain. These agreements not only diminish Israel’s isolation in the Middle East but also open doors for economic, security, and intelligence collaborations with former adversaries. By forging alliances that span across the globe while building new regional bridges, Israel has cultivated a powerful network of support, reinforcing its deterrence capabilities and ensuring its ability to effectively respond to evolving security challenges.
Why a Clear Winner is Unlikely in an Iran-Israel Conflict
Wars, much like road accidents, carry profound consequences but often lack proportionate causes. A clear “winner” is improbable in a conflict between Iran and Israel due to the far-reaching and complex repercussions. Israeli strikes on critical Iranian oil infrastructure, such as Kharg Island, could devastate Iran’s economy but simultaneously drive up global oil prices, significantly impacting American and international consumers. Iran’s strong economic ties with China, its largest oil buyer, and its recent rapprochement with Saudi Arabia further complicate the scenario, as these powers may work to avoid being embroiled in the conflict.
A potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global oil transit, would wreak havoc on the world economy. Meanwhile, Iranian retaliation could plunge the region into further instability. Lessons from past Middle Eastern conflicts, like the U.S. invasion of Iraq, underscore the risk of attracting external powers such as Russia and China, exacerbating tensions. With no guaranteed resolution and high stakes for global oil markets and regional stability, a decisive “winner” remains an unlikely outcome in this volatile confrontation.