By Qamar Bashir
The long-brewing confrontation between Israel and Iran has finally erupted into direct confrontation. After months of devastation in Gaza and precision assassinations in Lebanon and Syria, Israel has now escalated the battlefield to Tehran itself. In a daring and coordinated offensive, Israel launched air and missile strikes deep inside Iranian territory, reportedly targeting nuclear research facilities, air defense systems, ballistic
missile stockpiles, and military command centers. According to Israeli claims, several senior military leaders and scientists were killed, and substantial damage was inflicted on key installations.
This attack, although sudden in execution, was far from unexpected. I had earlier written—and consistently emphasized—that the real Israeli objective was never just Hamas or Hezbollah. Those were merely stepping stones in a broader strategy aimed squarely at Iran, whom Israel sees as the ideological, financial, and logistical nucleus of anti-Israel militant activity in the region. The elimination of Hamas’s leadership,
including Ismail Haniyeh, and the successive neutralization of Hezbollah’s command under Hassan Nasrallah, were deliberate moves to clear the path for a direct strike on Iran. As I noted then in an article titled: “It is not Hamas that is the ultimate target, but Iran—and sooner or later, Israel will strike.”
Despite a barrage of Iranian drone and missile retaliation following Israel’s operations in
Gaza and Lebanon, Israel did not immediately retaliate against Iran’s homeland. This
delay perplexed many observers. But strategically, it made perfect sense. Israel’s first
objective was to degrade Iran’s outer defense perimeter—its proxies: Hamas in Gaza,
Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. Israel methodically eliminated the top
command of Hamas and continued high-profile strikes on Hezbollah, including those that
killed Fuad Shukr, Taleb Abdallah, and other senior operatives.
This proxy war phase was a calculated move to weaken Iran’s retaliatory arms. Once the
regional tentacles were sufficiently blunted, Israel turned its attention to the source:
Tehran.
The precision with which this attack was executed mirrors earlier Israeli operations, such
as the assassinations of Quds Force commanders in Damascus and the stealth killing of
Ismail Haniyeh while under IRGC protection in Iran. Reports suggest that Israel deployed
a combination of long-range missiles, advanced drones, and possibly cyber warfare tools
to disable Iranian radar systems ahead of the attack.
Among the targets reportedly hit were Iran’s Natanz and Fordow nuclear enrichment
facilities, multiple ballistic missile depots near Isfahan, and key command bunkers in
Tehran. Israel also claims to have eliminated a number of senior IRGC commanders and
nuclear scientists critical to Iran’s uranium enrichment and missile development
programs. Although Iran has yet to officially confirm the scope of damage, the silence
from Tehran suggests a period of shock and damage assessment before retaliation.
For over three decades, Iran has operated under crushing Western sanctions. Despite
limited access to advanced military hardware, Iran has managed to develop indigenous
ballistic missile and drone capabilities. However, the recent Israeli strike has called into
question the true effectiveness of Iran’s deterrent power.
Iran’s April retaliatory strike on Israel using drones and missiles exposed vulnerabilities.
Most of its projectiles were intercepted mid-air by Israel’s layered air defense
systems—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow. The strike caused minimal damage and
maximum embarrassment. The same pattern repeated itself in this latest exchange,
suggesting that Iran’s offensive capabilities may be more symbolic than strategic.
President Donald Trump, in his second term, had openly discouraged Israeli strikes while
actively pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran. His envoy was scheduled to meet
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman when the strikes occurred. Trump
warned that the operation could derail delicate diplomacy, stating, “I don’t want them
going in because, I mean, that would blow it.”
But Iran is unlikely to remain passive. The regime’s credibility—both domestically and
regionally—is at stake. It may activate what remains of Hezbollah, mobilize pro-Iran
militias in Iraq and Syria, and possibly target American military bases in the Gulf.
However, such actions risk triggering a wider conflict that Iran may not be prepared to
sustain—militarily, diplomatically, or economically.
This war, unlike previous confrontations, is not confined to a single geographic theater. It
is already spilling over diplomatically, economically, and ideologically. The Strait of
Hormuz, which sees nearly 20% of the world’s oil shipments, is now at the center of
global concern. Any Iranian attempt to disrupt this chokepoint will send global oil prices
skyrocketing, potentially triggering inflation, economic slowdowns, and supply chain
disruptions—particularly in vulnerable economies like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts
of Africa.
Regionally, Pakistan must brace for the potential fallout. A full-scale Iran-Israel war
could create a new refugee crisis, possibly pushing Shia communities toward Pakistan’s
borders, further straining its fragile economic and social fabric. Ethnic and sectarian
spillovers could ignite unrest in sensitive areas already on edge due to internal instability.
On a global scale, Iranian diasporas may stage protests, cyber attacks, or other non-
kinetic responses. Human rights organizations and anti-war movements are also expected
to rally against Israel’s aggression, just as they have against its actions in Gaza. The
United Nations will soon become another front, with Iran pushing for international
sanctions on Israel and the latter leveraging its alliances to block such moves.
Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis, has already
resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Palestinians, according to credible international
estimates. This level of retribution has drawn severe criticism and raises critical questions
about the doctrine of proportionality. Now, with direct military strikes on Iran, the scale
of escalation suggests that Israel is prepared to operate outside established norms of
proportional response, prioritizing complete neutralization over measured deterrence.
If the goal is to prevent a future nuclear-armed Iran, the stakes are existential. Public
intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has not yet achieved weapons-grade
enrichment, though it is believed to be close. If Iran already has bomb-grade material and
a delivery system, Israel’s gamble could backfire catastrophically. A single nuclear strike
on Israeli territory—small as the country is—could be existential.
But this scenario rests on assumptions that are, so far, unverified. If Iran does not yet
possess nuclear capability, the conflict may remain conventional. In this case, Israel’s
superior airpower, advanced missile defense systems, and deep intelligence capabilities
give it a significant edge.
Israel has stated this is not a one-off attack but the beginning of a prolonged campaign.
The declared objectives include complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capability,
ballistic missile infrastructure, air defense systems, and command structure. If successful,
this campaign could redraw the strategic map of the Middle East.
The strike has also laid bare the powerlessness of international institutions. The UN, the
International Court of Justice, and the global civil society have issued statements—but
Israel acted undeterred. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency’s resolution
condemning Iran has failed to create any viable deterrence.
Meanwhile, Muslim nations, despite their collective population and wealth, remain
spectators. No unified diplomatic or kinetic response has emerged. This exposes not just
a military imbalance, but a broader geopolitical humiliation of the Muslim world.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett justified the strikes by warning that failure
to stop Iran could unleash a nuclear arms race across the Middle East—with Turkey,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia all seeking nuclear capabilities. “It’s time to hit the head of the
octopus,” he said, calling Iran the epicenter of terror.
Netanyahu echoed this in his national address: “We struck at the head of Iran’s nuclear
weaponization program… This is not a one-day attack. It will continue until the threat is
removed.”
Israel’s ability to act unilaterally, even against U.S. advice, and without fear of
diplomatic fallout, raises profound questions about the current global order. Israel, a tiny
nation geographically, now flexes geopolitical muscle equal to—or beyond—that of
traditional superpowers.
The events unfolding are more than military maneuvers—they mark the beginning of a
new geopolitical epoch. With China, Russia, and the EU largely silent or paralyzed, the
illusion of a balanced multipolar world is crumbling. Israel’s actions suggest that global
influence is no longer a function of size, economy, or alliances—but of audacity,
conviction, and superior military capability.
The strategic, moral, and institutional implications are enormous. Will the world allow
the Middle East to descend into nuclear chaos? Will diplomacy resurface, or will military
unilateralism become the new norm? And perhaps most importantly, will the Muslim
world continue to watch in stunned silence, or will it finally forge a unified response to
prevent the annihilation of its own geopolitical dignity?
History is no longer being shaped behind closed doors. It is being rewritten in missile
smoke over Tehran. And the world is watching—some in horror, some in awe, and most
in helplessness.
About Writer: Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at the Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Michigan, USA
