Editorial 2: The endgame of a 2,611-year-old Jewish-Persian enmity

Context

Israel’s actions against Iran were mainly aimed at destroying Iran’s important military assets, but they could lead to unexpected effects in the region and even outside it.

Introduction

Despite their deep hatred for each other, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who heads the country's most right-wing government ever, and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agreed on one thing yesterday: the huge importance of the full-scale conflict between their nations. While Netanyahu described it as "a decisive momentin Israel’s history", Khamenei strongly declared: "**With this act, the Zionist regime has brought upon itself a bitter and painful future."

Operation "Rising Lion": A Historical Inflection Point

• On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion” targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure.
• The operation may represent a critical turning point in the long-standing Jewish–Persian rivalry, dating back to 586 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the First Jewish Temple.
• This comes after nearly 21 months of Israeli confrontation with Iran and its regional proxies.

Nature and Scale of the Offensive

• Israel employed its trademark short, high-intensity blitzkrieg driven by advanced technology and real-time intelligence.
• Strikes were launched against:
  • Nuclear facilities
  • Missile systems
  • Key leadership and scientists

Key Operational Details

Strategic Preludes by Israel

• Since October 7, 2023, Israel has:
  • Systematically degraded Iranian proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis
  • Overthrown the Assad regime in Syria, enabling a Sunni Islamist replacement
  • Conducted targeted assassinations of Iranian figures
  • Provoked and then neutralized Iranian missile retaliation
  • Developed superior defence and attack systems, including:
    • Laser-based interception
    • Bunker-buster bombs
    • Deep-penetration strike capabilities

Involvement of the United States and Allies

Though publicly neutral, the United States appears to have provided indirect support through diplomatic, economic, and covert channels.

Diplomatic and Economic Measures

• Under Trump’s first term (2018): Withdrawal from the JCPOA and imposition of a “maximum pressure” policy
• Under Trump 2.0 (2025):
  • Intensified sanctions
  • Froze Iranian assets abroad
  • Pressured Saudi Arabia to end OPEC+ supply limits, causing a 20% drop in oil prices
  • Weakened Iran’s oil revenue through deliberate supply-side flooding
• Military and Legal Support
  • U.S. and allies bombed Houthis to reopen the Bab al-Mandeb maritime chokepoint
  • IAEA censure (June 12, 2025) initiated by the U.S. and European powers, condemning Iran’s nuclear activities and potentially legitimizing Israel’s strike
• Geopolitical Realignment
  • Sudden U.S. overtures to Pakistan suggest possible strategic use of:
    • Pakistan’s border with Iran
    • Pakistani military’s alignment with Gulf Arab states for tactical advantages

Arab World’s Uneasy Response

• The Sunni Arab states have mixed feelings about the Israeli strike on Iran.
• While they distrust both Iran and Israel, they fear retaliation from Iran or its proxies.
• Possible threats include:
  • Disruption of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz (vital for 20% of global oil)
  • Covert attacks on strategic targets
  • Shia unrest within Sunni-majority regimes
• This instability could allow terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda to re-emerge.

Scope and Risks of Israeli Operations

• Israel claims its operations are limited to neutralizing Iran’s strategic assets.
• Observers warn of unforeseen consequences, depending on:
  • Whether Israel can achieve its aims surgically, avoiding collateral damage
  • Whether radioactive fallout or civilian harm occurs

Iran’s Possible Resilience and Fallout

• There is a real chance Iran could withstand the attack, undermining Israel’s goal of a quick, decisive strike.
• A prolonged war could:
  • Rally Iranian public opinion behind the regime
  • Turn Israel’s move into a geopolitical burden, especially in the Global South
  • Escalate regional unrest and economic instability

Global Economic Repercussions

• A long conflict would worsen existing problems like:
  • Rising oil prices
  • Inflation
  • Slower global growth
  • Supply chain disruptions
  • Financial market volatility
• It could also discredit Donald Trump’s claims of ending “endless wars”.

Unpredictable Conflict Trajectory

• Wars often defy expectations.
• Israel hopes to cripple Iran quickly, as the U.S. did with Iraq in 1991.
• But if Iran is badly hit yet defiant, it may:
  • Expand the conflict
  • Target U.S. allies in the region
  • Potentially draw in the U.S. military
  • Trigger regime change efforts or a dramatic shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics

Conclusion

India has a lot at stake in the ongoing conflict — including the safety of around nine million Indians living in the region, almost half of its foreign remittances, oil supplies, and a large share of exports and investments. India is desperately hoping for a quick and clear end to the fighting and a return to peace in the region. Looking back, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology has come at a huge cost for a country already rich in oil and gas. Some estimates suggest that Iran spent up to $100 billion chasing this nuclear dream, believing it would protect its national security. But with the current situation, many may now ask whether this risky strategy actually made things worse instead.