Who Will Win the Israel–Iran Conflict? Strategic Calculations in a Shadow War Gone Hot

The sudden escalation in hostilities between Israel and Iran in 2025 marks the transformation of a long-simmering shadow war into overt regional conflict. For decades, Israel has pursued a doctrine of prevention—through covert sabotage, cyber warfare and targeted strikes—to hinder Iran’s nuclear development. Now, faced with what she claims is a narrowing window to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, Israel has launched a series of intensive air and missile campaigns aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, command-and-control systems and assets of the IRGC (the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a second army structure enshrined in Iran's revolutionary constitution that holds much of the real power in Iran). In turn, Iran has responded with ballistic and drone strikes against Israeli territory, mobilisation of regional proxy networks and the threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian navy, between Bandar Abbas and the United Arab Emirates, would leave Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE without access to the Arabian Sea.

Strategic Objectives

Israel’s primary objective is unambiguous: to halt or significantly delay Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons capability. The logic is rooted in national survival; Israeli doctrine views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. Conversely, Iran’s goal is more diffuse: to demonstrate regional strategic deterrence, preserve regime credibility, avoid regime collapse, and, ideally, to retaliate sufficiently to deter future Israeli (or Western) intervention.

Victory for Israel would mean a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear programme—perhaps setting it back by several years—without triggering a full-scale regional war or facing unacceptable losses. Victory for Iran would be survival with her core nuclear infrastructure intact and the projection of enough deterrence to prevent further attacks.

Military Capacities and Asymmetries

In terms of conventional firepower, Israel has clear qualitative advantages:

• Air Superiority: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) is amongst the most technologically advanced in the world. Its F-35I Adir stealth fighters, precision-guided munitions and real-time battlefield intelligence give it a surgical edge.

• Air Defences: Israel’s multilayered missile shield—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow-3—is designed specifically to counter saturation attacks from rockets and ballistic missiles.

• Intelligence Superiority: Israeli intelligence (Mossad, Aman, Shin Bet) has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to infiltrate Iranian networks, conduct cyber operations (e.g. Stuxnet, a malicious computer worm that transmits itself across computers and systems to perform cyber attacks on Iran's command and control structures), and launch deep strikes with minimal exposure.

Iran, by contrast, lacks comparable conventional capacity:

• Air Force Limitations: Iran’s air force remains largely obsolete, based on Cold War-era Soviet and American aircraft. She lacks meaningful power projection at long ranges.

• Ballistic Missiles and Drones: Iran’s asymmetric strength lies in a vast arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and suicide drones, capable of targeting Israeli infrastructure, airbases and cities. While accuracy is improving, they remain less precise than Israeli munitions.

• Proxy Network: Iran’s strength lies also in depth—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. These actors provide avenues for multi-front escalation.

The Opening Salvos

The first wave of Israeli attacks in May 2025 reportedly targeted Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, as well as IRGC command facilities. Open-source satellite imagery and Iranian media confirm significant damage to infrastructure and power systems, as well as a scheme of targeted assassinations of senior Iranian military officials. Iran retaliated with a salvo of over 150 missiles and drones aimed at Israeli airbases in the Negev and Haifa. While 90% were intercepted, the psychological impact and physical damage for Israel were non-negligible.

Hezbollah has since launched sporadic rocket fire from southern Lebanon, and Houthi drones were detected over Eilat, showing that Iran’s regional deterrent is activated, if not yet fully mobilised.

Likely Scenarios

1. Israeli Tactical Victory, Strategic Stalemate

If Israel can repeat the success of her 1981 and 2007 strikes on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities, it may set back Iran’s programme by several years. However Iran’s facilities are more dispersed, hardened, and protected, several buried deep underground (up to 100 metres) and vulnerable only to American GBU 57-B "bunker busting" bombs (launched from US B-2 heavy stealth bombers), which Israel does not have. Even partial success may ignite prolonged proxy warfare, mass missile retaliation, and regional instability. The Israeli public, while resilient, may not tolerate months of sustained missile attacks.

2. Iranian Strategic Resilience

Iran may absorb the blows, declare “divine victory,” and accelerate her programme underground. Unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran may double down rather than retreat. Sanctions relief is no longer viable; the regime may reason it has little to lose. If Iran maintains her capability or reconstitutes it quickly, Israel’s operation may be judged a short-term tactical win but a strategic failure.

3. Full-Scale Regional War

The worst-case scenario involves Hezbollah entering the war fully, opening a devastating northern front, with tens of thousands of rockets raining down on Israel. The US may be drawn in. The Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, may side with Israel covertly, fearing Iranian adventurism. The Strait of Hormuz could be closed, triggering a global oil shock.

While this remains the least desirable outcome for all parties, miscalculation is a real possibility.

4. International Diplomatic Intervention

If the conflict stalls or escalates dangerously, Western powers—especially the US and the EU—may push for a ceasefire. However, under President Trump’s 2025 administration, US foreign policy is more ambiguous. While Washington supports Israel politically, it has shown little appetite for broader engagement of any military kind, anywhere in the world. Russia and China may also enter diplomatically, exploiting American hesitancy.

Assessment of Likely Outcomes

In a short-term military exchange, Israel is likely to outperform Iran. She possesses superior targeting capability, greater air power and better civil defence. However a durable victory depends on achieving strategic goals—namely long-term degradation of Iran’s nuclear capacity and re-establishment of deterrence.

Iran’s strengths lie in her ability to outlast, escalate asymmetrically and exploit regional instability. Her survival—even bloodied—may be framed as a win, particularly if her proxies inflict serious damage on Israeli society.

Thus a “win” is conditional. Israel may prevail militarily but still find herself ensnared in protracted asymmetric conflict. Iran may suffer losses yet emerge more committed to its programme, with deeper ties to Russia and China.

A conflict without certainties

Victory in the Israel–Iran conflict depends not only on battlefield outcomes but on strategic endurance, regional dynamics, and diplomatic agility. Israel may win battles, but whether she can “win the war” depends on what her objectives really are—and whether she can achieve them without plunging the Middle East into even deeper chaos.