The recent military conflict between Iran and Israel has taken what was a hidden competition and transformed it into a more dangerous and direct conflict. Both states employed proxy forces, cyber warfare, and precision sabotage to impose costs without risking crossing the line into open war for decades. But in June 2025, both countries attacked each other’s territory with missiles and air strikes in the most open confrontation so far, making a change in doctrine, strategy, and deployment of advanced military technology.

Israel’s June 2025 airstrikes, guided by AI-enabled targeting and F-35I Adir jets, embodied its doctrine of crippling adversary capabilities before they coalesce.

It’s not merely another Middle Eastern conflict, but a strategic transformation with profound consequences. Missiles, drones, and precision airpower are becoming prominent tools of statecraft, with doctrines previously built around deterrence giving way to risk-capable, high-velocity escalation strategies.

Israel’s recent strikes focused on Iranian military bases, air defence, the residence of high-profile Generals, and suspected nuclear-related installations. Supported by F-35I Adir, F-15I Ra’am and real-time intelligence, the operation reportedly crippled many Iranian radars and missile launch capabilities. The campaign was an expression of Israel’s time-honoured doctrine of preemptive strikes, a principle based on taking the initiative, depriving the enemy of time to organise, and displaying greater capability.

However, Israeli strikes were not merely a matter of military accomplishment; they were also an exercise in strategic signalling.  By making restraint public warning before some of the attacks, Tel Aviv cast itself as a responsible player intent on minimising civilian casualties, even as it delivered a heavy counterpunch. But what was witnessed was an attack on civilian apartments as well as military targets. This suggests an effort to maintain international legitimacy even during high-intensity combat. Utilisation of AI-targeting aids, deep surveillance integration, and multi-layered air supremacy reflects Israel’s commitment to maintaining a Qualitative Military Edge (QME), which is a core pillar of its defence doctrine.

Iran’s retaliation was swift but restrained. It fired dozens of Shahed drones and ballistic missiles, some at Israeli bases and strategic locations. The succession of drones followed by missiles indicates tactical reasoning as drones act as ISR platforms and as saturation assets to test and degrade the missile defense system. Remarkably, Tehran avoided targeting packed civilian areas or key infrastructure, which indicates an intent for measured deterrence instead of full-blown escalations.

Iran’s waves of Shahed drones, followed by ballistic missiles, showcased a cost-effective tactic to probe and exhaust Israel’s sophisticated missile-defence shield.

Iran’s actions were not merely acts of revenge; they are doctrinal messages to enhance red lines without unleashing a cycle of uncontrolled escalation. By doing this, Iran kept pursuing its approach to escalation management by limited but symbolic force projection. This strategy is a new iteration of Iran’s doctrine of asymmetry, using lower-cost equipment such as drones, in combination with cyber warfare and psychological deterrence to counterbalance the technologically advanced adversary.

What is most striking in the brief but intense exchange is the prominence of drones and ballistic missiles. They are no longer peripheral assets; they have now become a frontline tool of strategic coercion. For Israel, David’s Sling and Arrow air defences worked wonderfully, but at a high cost, which raises questions about long-term sustainability in a war of attrition against swarms of low-cost drones.

For Iran, the saturation strategy demonstrates that with limited technology, a country can upset an advanced defensive system by emphasising volume and timing over accuracy. This introduces a dangerous new reality, the threshold of deterrence and escalation can now be tested at little immediate human cost, particularly if drones take the place of manned aircraft. The lower access cost to war, both politically and economically, increases the urge to strike.

This war is a doctrinal conflict. The doctrine of Israel remains one of deterrence by power, speed, air superiority, and intelligence dominance. Its military strategy attempts to maintain strategic superiority and raise the cost of aggression for enemies. Iran’s strategy is centred on survivability, denial, and long-term attrition. It is based on decentralisation, layered deterrence (providing proxy forces), and a gradual approach toward achieving strategic parity. Both doctrines are evolving.

Drones and ballistic missiles have become frontline instruments of statecraft, lowering the threshold for escalation by reducing immediate human risk.

Israel is incorporating AI, cyber warfare, and unmanned systems. Iran is developing its drone swarms, missile accuracy, and information warfare. The result is a more volatile, unpredictable military balance where traditional escalation can arise from non-traditional instruments.

From the perspective of South Asia, particularly in light of the India-Pakistan situation, this escalation is informative. Just like  Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan possess nuclear capabilities, engage in hybrid warfare and operate within chronic strategic tension. The 2025 war between Iran and Israel shows that escalation may be controlled, but not necessarily controlled, especially when both feel they can easily win or escape full-scale war. Crisis stability in nuclear situations requires live communication, credible red lines and third-party diplomacy, all of which were notably lacking in the initial hours of this conflict.

The Iran-Israel clash illustrates how conflicts in the 21st century are as much defined by doctrine, technology, and perception as by weapons. In this high-speed battlefield, drones and missiles are not merely weapons; they are strategic messages. And every launch, every interception, every pause says something. Both nations are now past the point of simple brinkmanship; deterrence has not only been tested but broken.

Deterrence proves brittle when rivals believe rapid, limited strikes can yield advantage without triggering full-scale war.

With substantial damage inflicted on both sides, Iran-Israel tension has entered a perilously dangerous operational phase. For analysts, scholars, and policymakers, this is no longer a regional hot spot kept at bay by strategy; it is a live example of how warfare develops in the contemporary era when red lines are crossed and escalation becomes a reality. This is not the future of war; it is its unrolling present.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.