No turning back: Israel and Iran locked in direct military confrontation
For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app.
From Israel's perspective, this war is not just a reaction to threats; it is a preemptive act of survival. Officials in Tel Aviv had increasingly warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear threshold, and that time was running out to stop the Islamic Republic from acquiring the capability to develop and potentially use nuclear weapons. For months, military and intelligence agencies in Israel had reportedly drawn up extensive plans for a decisive strike – a scenario that would cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions in one swift blow. That moment came last week, as waves of Israeli fighter jets, drones, and cyber units launched a surprise offensive, striking deep inside Iranian territory.
The operation, reportedly called 'Operation Rising Lion,' was massive in scope and shockingly effective. Within a span of less than 48 hours, Israeli forces conducted coordinated strikes on over one hundred critical targets, including uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, missile production plants, and weapons storage sites. Even more strikingly, Israel successfully assassinated multiple senior Iranian nuclear scientists and top military commanders, including figures seen as central to Iran's nuclear program and regional military strategy. These were not symbolic casualties – among the dead were General Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran's military chief of staff, and General Gholam Ali Rashid, a key strategic planner. The sudden loss of such high-ranking officials has left Iran's military leadership severely fragmented and scrambling to regain control.
In addition to the airstrikes, the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, reportedly carried out precision ground operations within Iran to sabotage radar systems, disable air defense units, and guide airstrikes to their intended targets. The element of surprise was total. Iran, which had long anticipated Israeli threats, was caught off guard. According to both Western intelligence and regional analysts, the effectiveness of the attack was not only due to Israel's superior technology but also its ability to exploit internal disorganization and political distractions within Iran.
Iran's response was swift but lacked the coordination and impact of the Israeli assault. Within hours of the attacks, the Iranian military launched a barrage of over one hundred drones and several hundred ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory. The Islamic Republic declared that it would retaliate and vowed to exact revenge for what it called an act of war and a violation of its sovereignty.
What makes this confrontation different from past escalations is its sheer scale and direction. Unlike previous episodes, which often involved a few strikes, some limited retaliation, and a quick return to uneasy quiet, this conflict appears to be heading into uncharted territory. Both sides seem to have abandoned any pretense of restraint. Israeli officials have hinted that they are prepared to continue operations. Iran, for its part, has issued statements signaling that it sees this as an existential conflict and will not cease until Israel 'pays a heavy price.' The language and actions on both sides suggest that this is not another tit-for-tat exchange – it is an all-out war, and it may not stop until one side suffers a definitive military defeat.
The key question now is: Who holds the upper hand – geopolitically, strategically, and militarily?
The answer, at least for now, appears to favor Israel. Iran is entering this war from a position of profound weakness. Its strategic alliances and regional influence have been severely diminished. The al-Assad regime in Syria, once a reliable partner and host to Iranian forces, collapsed following internal revolt and international isolation. Hezbollah in Lebanon, long considered Iran's most powerful proxy, has been depleted by war and Israeli airstrikes. Hamas has suffered significant setbacks in Gaza, both militarily and politically. The Iranian regime, therefore, finds itself more isolated than ever before, with its regional influence waning at a critical moment.
At home, Iran faces a deeply discontented population. Widespread protests in recent years have laid bare the depth of frustration within Iranian society, particularly among the younger generation. Decades of economic hardship, international sanctions, government repression, and unmet political promises have created a volatile environment. Although the regime maintains tight control through the Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces, public morale is low and trust in leadership is deteriorating. Launching a major war at such a time poses extraordinary risks. If the military suffers major defeats or if civilian casualties mount, the government could face another wave of mass protests, this time fueled by both anger and despair.
In contrast, Israel sees itself in a far stronger position. Having systematically weakened Iran's regional proxies, it now finds itself freer to act directly against Tehran without the immediate fear of multi-front retaliation. Strategically, the collapse of the Syrian regime has eliminated one of the key platforms through which Iran projected force toward Israel. Hezbollah's diminished arsenal and Hamas's recent defeats mean fewer distractions at Israel's northern and southern borders. Most importantly, Israel enjoys steadfast support from the United States, which has provided air defense coordination.
From a military standpoint, the war is not expected to involve ground invasions. Instead, it is being waged almost entirely through air and missile power. And in this arena, Israel enjoys a clear and overwhelming advantage. Its air force, among the most technologically advanced in the world, includes stealth fighters, satellite-guided munitions, and electronic warfare capabilities that Iran cannot match. Israeli pilots are highly trained, and the country's air defense systems have proven themselves again and again under intense pressure. Iran, by contrast, relies heavily on older aircraft, drones, and ballistic missiles that are often intercepted before reaching their targets. While Iran can inflict damage, it lacks the ability to deliver sustained, precision strikes at the scale Israel can.
Cyber capabilities also play a role, and again, Israel leads. As the dust settles from the first week of this conflict, one thing is clear: Iran's government finds itself in a deeply vulnerable and constrained position. With senior leadership eliminated, nuclear progress rolled back, air defense systems compromised, and limited retaliatory capacity, Tehran faces an uphill battle. Its options are few, and none of them are without risk. Escalation may lead to further destruction and internal unrest. Concessions may appear as weakness and erode legitimacy further.
Israel, while facing inevitable costs and the unpredictability of extended war, has so far executed a well-coordinated, high-impact campaign. It controls the pace and scope of escalation and holds most of the tactical advantages. Whether it chooses to press forward with further strikes or negotiate from a position of strength will depend on evolving strategic calculations. But for now, it holds the military and geopolitical upper hand.
As the world watches anxiously, the future of the Middle East hangs in the balance. This is not merely a military clash – it is a historic showdown between two regional powers, one weakened and cornered, the other emboldened and empowered. The coming weeks will determine whether this war reshapes regional order, or ignites an even wider and more devastating conflagration.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arab News
21 minutes ago
- Arab News
A masterclass in diplomacy
Over the past 18 months, Riyadh has quietly delivered a masterclass in diplomacy, steadily reshaping how Western capitals approach the Palestinian file. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the hands-on diplomacy of Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the Kingdom has pursued a strategy rooted in hard-nosed pragmatism: Washington's strategic umbrella over Israel will not fold under fiery speeches or social media storms. Rather than waste energy on theatrics, Saudi Arabia has opted for a patient, cumulative approach — chipping away at Israel's aura of effortless Western legitimacy until the political calculus inside G7 capitals begins to shift. It may feel slow to the impatient observer, but in a world that rewards persistence over noise, this is how real influence is built. At the core of this approach is a sober understanding of limits, paired with precisely applied leverage. Saudi Arabia does not pretend it can strong-arm a superpower. Instead, it keeps oil markets steady and refrains from military theatrics — moves that earn quiet access where it matters most: in chancelleries, parliaments, and boardrooms that shape policy toward Israel. Critics mistake this restraint for timidity. In truth, it reflects a deeper wisdom: Decades of impulsive grandstanding have done little beyond plunging the region into chaos. Riyadh has learned that proportion, not provocation, delivers lasting results. The coalition-building effort began in Paris, where France, seeking Middle East relevance, found its regional ballast in Saudi Arabia. London, responding to domestic outrage over Gaza, followed suit; Ottawa, wary of standing alone in the G7, came next. Each recognition of Palestine may be symbolic, but symbolism is precisely what has underpinned Israel's hard-won status as a normalized Western democracy. Every fracture in that image raises the long-term reputational cost of occupation and embeds it into Israeli strategic thinking. This quiet momentum reflects the polling data: US support for Israel's Gaza operations has eroded sharply, especially among voters under 40. Demography is destiny. Riyadh is playing the long game — betting on time, not tantrums, to unwind Washington's old consensus. That consensus is already fraying on college campuses, in statehouses, and across ESG-conscious boardrooms. The tactic: maintain the spotlight on Gaza, deny any pretext for American disengagement, and let US voters begin to carry the moral and political weight. The crown prince made the Kingdom's position unequivocal in his Shoura Council address: There will be no recognition of Israel without a viable Palestinian state. This is not a revival of 1973-style oil brinkmanship — which in today's world would simply accelerate Western diversification and slash Arab revenues. Instead, Riyadh keeps markets stable while freezing Israel's regional integration until it engages seriously with a two-state solution. That keeps global consumers comfortable — and Israel on edge. Saudi diplomacy has achieved in 18 months what half a century of summitry and rhetoric failed to deliver. Ali Shihabi The promise of normalization remains on the table — but firmly behind a two-state gate. The Abraham Accords opened easy access to the Gulf. Saudi Arabia redrew that map. Sovereign capital, Red Sea connectivity, and cutting-edge partnerships are all within reach — but only post-settlement. The burden now shifts to Israel: It must explain to its own citizens why ideology should block a generational opportunity to transform from a garrison state to a regional player. When economic logic aligns with strategic necessity, ideology eventually yields. One of the most consequential developments came when Saudi Arabia, alongside other Arab states, publicly called for Hamas to disarm and relinquish control of Gaza. This decisive step stripped Israel of a convenient excuse to delay its withdrawal and continue its campaign of collective punishment. By removing the justification of 'no partner for peace,' it undercut Israel's excuse to prolong military operations and war crimes under the guise of self-defense — reinforcing the international call for an end to occupation and the need for a political solution. Those Muslim and Arab voices calling for boycotts, embargoes, or war have misread both history and the current moment. Power today lies in leverage applied at pressure points — not in slogans shouted from podiums. Saudi diplomacy has forced Western democracies, Israel's most critical club of supporters, to seriously reconsider the question of Palestinian statehood. It has achieved in 18 months what half a century of summitry and rhetoric failed to deliver. The task now is for other Arab capitals to reinforce this approach, consolidating influence rather than scattering it in performative gestures. Yes, Israel retains a US veto — for now. But no veto can stop demographic shifts in swing states, the quiet pressure of British MPs attuned to their constituents, or the economic calculus of European firms navigating boycott risks. In time, Israel will face a stark choice: perpetual siege and growing isolation, or coexistence with a sovereign Palestinian neighbor. Saudi Arabia today holds the key to that door — and remains the only real diplomatic lifeline for Ramallah. In the battlefields of 2025 — conference rooms, boardrooms, and social media feeds — the Kingdom advances quietly, methodically, and on its own terms. For those who value outcomes over optics, this is not caution. It is wisdom.


Arab News
21 minutes ago
- Arab News
Hamas says it won't disarm unless independent Palestinian state established
GAZA: Hamas said on Saturday that it would not disarm unless an independent Palestinian state is established — a fresh rebuke to a key Israeli demand to end the war in Gaza. Indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel aimed at securing a 60-day ceasefire in the Gaza war and deal for the release of hostages ended last week in deadlock. On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt, who are mediating ceasefire efforts, endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and saying that as part of this Hamas must hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority. In its statement, Hamas — which has dominated Gaza since 2007 but has been militarily battered by Israel in the war — said it could not yield its right to 'armed resistance' unless an 'independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital' is established. Israel considers the disarmament of Hamas a key condition for any deal to end the conflict, but Hamas has repeatedly said it is not willing to lay down its weaponry. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described any future independent Palestinian state as a platform to destroy Israel and said, for that reason, security control over Palestinian territories must remain with Israel. He also criticized several countries, including the UK and Canada, for announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state in response to devastation of Gaza from Israel's offensive and blockade, calling the move a reward for Hamas' conduct. The war started when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza. Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has turned much of the enclave into a wasteland, killed over 60,000 Palestinians and set off a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel and Hamas traded blame after the most recent round of talks ended in an impasse, with gaps lingering over issues including the extent of an Israeli military withdrawal.

Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Germany says ‘very insufficient' aid entering Gaza
The amount of aid entering Gaza remains 'very insufficient' despite a limited improvement, the German government said on Saturday after ministers discussed ways to heighten pressure on Israel. The criticism came after Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul visited the region on Thursday and Friday and the German military staged its first food airdrops into Gaza, where aid agencies say that more than two million Palestinians are facing starvation. Germany 'notes limited initial progress in the delivery of humanitarian aid to the population of the Gaza Strip, which, however, remains very insufficient to alleviate the emergency situation,' government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said in a statement. 'Israel remains obligated to ensure the full delivery of aid,' Kornelius added. Facing mounting international criticism over its military operations in Gaza, Israel has allowed more trucks to cross the border and some foreign nations to carry out airdrops of food and medicines. International agencies say the amount of aid entering Gaza is still dangerously low, however. The United Nations has said that 6,000 trucks are awaiting permission from Israel to enter the occupied Palestinian territory. The German government, traditionally a strong supporter of Israel, also expressed 'concern regarding reports that large quantities of humanitarian aid are being withheld by Hamas and criminal organizations.' Israel has alleged that much of the aid arriving in the territory is being siphoned off by Hamas, which runs Gaza. The Israeli army is accused of having equipped Palestinian criminal networks in its fight against Hamas and of allowing them to plunder aid deliveries. 'The real theft of aid since the beginning of the war has been carried out by criminal gangs, under the watch of Israeli forces,' Jonathan Whittall of OCHA, the United Nations agency for coordinating humanitarian affairs, told reporters in May. A German government source told AFP it had noted that Israel has 'considerably' increased the number of aid trucks allowed into Gaza to about 220 a day. Berlin has taken a tougher line against Israel's actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank in recent weeks. The source said that a German security cabinet meeting on Saturday discussed 'the different options' for putting pressure on Israel, but no decision was taken. A partial suspension of arms deliveries to Israel is one option that has been raised. Hamas militants launched an attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, that resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures. Israel's military offensive on Gaza since then has killed at least 60,249 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry. The UN considers the ministry's figures reliable.