Through an academic and diplomatic lens, the analysis highlights the risks and limits of escalation and hard power with particular emphasis on the system-level of analysis. A system-level analysis views the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Israel conflict or war as a mutual outcome of an anarchic international system where states prioritize power and security.

“The 12-Day Iran-Israel War shows how limited modern warfare can still lead to serious harm, with an impact equivalent to traditional combat.”

As a realist assumption, in such a system, countries like Iran and Israel focus on protecting themselves and gaining maximum power by prioritizing security. They often use force to counter threats and demonstrate strength, as the Middle East experiences significant geopolitical shifts, and whereas perception frequently overshadows reality, with technology, careful narrative building is essential.

The credibility of the international system and the enforcement of international law have suffered a significant decline in the evolving global order, where the principle of “might is right” increasingly prevails. Powerful states often shape international and regional politics through diplomacy, economic influence, or military force, gaining international legitimacy. Meanwhile, public movements and protests continue to demonstrate a strong desire to seek justice and peace.

Due to the breakdown of diplomacy and insufficient international cooperation, idealists or liberals view the Iran-Israel war as a consequence of confrontation. They believe such conflicts can be reduced or avoided through dialogue, trust-building, and strong institutions. After the Iranian (Islamic) revolution in 1979, the Iran-Israel rivalry, historically been waged through proxies and covert actions, which has transitioned into direct and declared war from June 13 to June 24, 2025.

In the Iran-Israel context, “WAR” does not signify (classic sense) traditional state-on-state warfare but rather a hybrid war involving cyber operations, limited aerial strikes, missile exchanges, and indirect engagement through proxies. Top defense officials in both Iran and Israel view the ceasefire as a short-term pause, not a solid agreement. With deep-rooted mistrust and an unstable peace framework, the potential for fresh conflict remains high, especially if provoked again by serious cyberattacks or top leaders’ assassinations.

The United States of America, a strong mediator and key supporter of Israel, has seen its influence in the Middle East decline as it shifts attention to the Indo-Pacific region. The Iran and Israel conflict led to civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, provoking concerns about breaches of international law. Constructivist theory helps explain how both states framed their actions through hostile identity, norms, and security-driven narratives and highlights the role of perception in modern conflicts.

“Top defense officials in both Iran and Israel view the ceasefire as a short-term pause, not a solid agreement.”

Iran as defensive, Israel as preventative actions, demonstrating how international norms and perceptions influence state behaviour during conflict. In the Middle East, the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia goes back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and is shaped by competing sectarian and political views, despite both Saudi Arabia and Iran two important countries in the Muslim world. Iran follows a revolutionary theocracy, while Saudi Arabia supports a traditional monarchy.

As regional unity has weakened, and groups like the Gulf Cooperation Council and Organization of Islamic Cooperation offer limited cooperation, Saudi Arabia has relied more on U.S security support, while Iran builds its influence through groups that follow its resistance-based approach. In the March 2023 Saudi-Iran deal, brokered by China with support from Iraq and Oman, a peace that has helped prevent regional escalation.

Post-revolution Iran, limited by international sanctions and ideology, adopted a forward defense doctrine to project power, deter threats early, and secure regional influence. Iran is now adopting a more flexible foreign policy posture due to internal challenges in an effort to prioritize domestic stability. Iran says under international law its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes. Modern warfare is not only limited to the physical battlefields but also to minds, which includes media propaganda to influence public perception through narratives and messaging.

The 12-Day Iran-Israel War shows how limited modern warfare can still lead to serious harm, with an impact equivalent to traditional combat. Peace should be the result of the internal dialogue between the conflicting parties, but if peace is the result of external pressure, it is weak by design, as each state remains in a strategic patience, monitoring developments and assessing potential gains and losses.

The initial Israeli strike carried both strategic depth and psychological weight; however, the border conflict illuminated persistent challenges in escalation control, proxy engagement, and the consequences of strategic overreach. Despite causing damage, the strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure fell short of achieving full dismantlement, according to a leaked U.S. intelligence report. Solidarity is urgently needed not only within the Arab world or the Middle East region, but across the world to collectively address shared challenges and suffering of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“The credibility of the international system and the enforcement of international law have suffered a significant decline in the evolving global order.”

Due to Israel-Palestine tensions, the conflict’s human toll is rising as civilians in Gaza face starvation, deaths, displacement, and trauma. Meanwhile, regional trade disruptions and oil price hikes are deepening economic instability and worsening inflation and youth unemployment across the region.

Pakistan faces the complex task of supporting Iran without straining relations with key allies, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, US, whose cooperation is vital to its strategic and economic interests. Implications for diplomatic balancing remain vital for Pakistan, which maintains ties with the Gulf states and Iran while upholding a principled stance of no official relations with Israel, rooted historical solidarity with the Palestine cause, and the broader Muslim consensus.

Internally, promoting sectarian harmony is essential to avoid the regional spread of tensions. Trade, energy, and border cooperation, particularly with Iran, require renewed strategic attention. Meanwhile, public sentiment and religious narratives continue to influence foreign policy across the Muslim world, including Pakistan. Whereas India’s (Hindutva) and Israel’s (Zionist) hegemonic aspirations, supported by intelligence sharing and military coordination, are reshaping the security dynamics of South Asia and the Middle East. Their coordinated posture against Iran and Pakistan risks triggering a new cycle of competition and confrontation.

“Pakistan faces the complex task of supporting Iran without straining relations with key allies, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States.”

This situation needs quick attention from the global community for peace and stability in the region. During the recent visit of Iran’s  President to Pakistan, Pakistan and Iran agreed to boost bilateral trade to form $3 billion to $10 billion, enhance counterterrorism cooperation, while emphasizing Muslim unity in support of the Palestine and Kashmir cause. Recently, Iran and Israel tensions show flaws in the rules-based international order and highlight rapid escalation, proxy risks, and the need the diplomacy. A ceasefire was reached on June 24, bringing the conflict to an end. Iran and Israel fought a 12-day war on every front, a lasting peace remains uncertain.

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.