The Iran-Israel War — An Analytical Overview Qazi Dad Mohammad Rehan The ongoing conflict is not merely a regional skirmish; it reflects a complex geopolitical struggle with roots that run deep into history. Israel’s recent military actions are not limited to targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities — they appear to be part of a broader strategy aimed at reshaping the region’s balance of power and paving the way to weaken, or ultimately change, Iran’s internal political structure. Benjamin Netanyahu’s references to “regime change” and use of coded phrases such as “Rise of the Lion” (the lion being a historic symbol of Iran’s Pahlavi monarchy) suggest that Israel’s ambitions extend beyond merely containing Iran’s nuclear program. This hints at a desire for a fundamental transformation within Iran — a critical lens through which to interpret today’s regional dynamics. Evidence of this broader aim lies in Israel’s targeting not only of facilities but also of senior military leaders — an effort to remove figures seen as pillars of strength within the Iranian system, potentially creating leadership vacuums at the heart of Iran’s power structure. Yet, despite these attacks, the Iranian government has so far managed to maintain internal control. Two significant uprisings have already failed in recent years, and the latest Israeli strikes have not triggered a popular revolt. Instead, concern for national integrity appears to have united even disaffected groups under the banner of national survival. This reflects a recurring truth: foreign intervention often strengthens national identity. In the face of external aggression, internal divisions are set aside in favor of preserving national existence. A striking indicator of this is the divided stance among the Iranian diaspora regarding support for Israel. Even among opposition factions abroad, many consider national sovereignty more important than foreign-backed change — and they reject the idea of restoring the Pahlavi monarchy after the fall of the current system. One disillusioned Iranian wrote on X that, despite dissatisfaction with the Islamic Republic, they would still prefer Khamenei’s rule over a monarchy imposed by external powers. In military terms, Israel’s precision strikes — enabled by extensive intelligence and espionage networks — have successfully hit key targets. Iran’s response, by contrast, has largely been symbolic, limited to missile attacks that have failed to deliver any significant military gains. This asymmetry may be due in part to the limits of Iran’s military capabilities. Open war could expose Iran to even greater dangers — especially if the United States were to enter the conflict openly in support of Israel, a scenario Iran clearly fears. Donald Trump’s remarks following the G7 summit only added to these concerns, reinforcing the possibility that the U.S. might join the war at any moment. However, even a weakened Iran could respond unpredictably — targeting U.S. interests in the region or potentially blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could spark a global economic crisis. Israel’s aggressive policy has also alerted other regional players — including Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. While Arab governments may refrain from direct reactions, there is growing recognition — at least among Arab intellectual circles — of what Israel’s actions truly signify. Many in these circles now express sympathy for Iran, seeing that what is happening to Iran today could easily happen to another nation tomorrow. Israel’s approach may also reshape future military doctrines globally, as many states could adopt its tactics of preemptive, surprise strikes under the cover of darkness — often in places where no immediate threat exists. Israel’s intent is clear: it seeks not a balance of power in the region but absolute military dominance. This became evident in Syria, where — even after regime change — Israel targeted ports, airfields, and naval assets to ensure that its neighbor posed no military threat. Thus, it would be a narrow view to see the current confrontation as merely a bilateral conflict between Iran and Israel. In reality, it represents a struggle to reorder the regional balance of power — a battle to redefine the strategic architecture of the Middle East. In this context, the roles of other key powers — Russia, China, and Turkey — will be critical, as these nations are capable of reshaping the regional order. However, Russia’s focus remains divided due to its war in Ukraine, leaving China and Turkey’s diplomatic maneuvers as important factors to watch. Ultimately, this war may well mark the beginning of a broader geopolitical shift — one that will alter power structures, diplomatic alignments, and the dynamics of internal politics across the region.