The Unfinished Conflict: Iran, Israel, and the Struggle for Regional Dominance

By Asif Haroon Raja

The ongoing confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has rapidly transformed from a shadow war into one of the most dangerous and consequential conflicts in the modern history of West Asia.

What began as a series of covert operations, proxy engagements, sanctions, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations, has now evolved into direct military exchanges involving missile barrages, drone attacks, air strikes, naval deployments, and attacks on strategic infrastructure.

The conflict has not only destabilized the regional security environment but has also triggered a major geopolitical realignment, drawing in global powers such as China and Russia, alarming the Arab Gulf States, and raising fears of a wider regional war with serious implications for global energy security, maritime trade, and the future balance of power in the Middle East.

Iran’s Tunneling Scheme

After witnessing the catastrophic destruction inflicted upon several targeted Muslim States in the Middle East by the United States and its allies, Tehran accelerated the construction of its underground cities and fortified tunnel networks in earnest to safeguard its strategic assets and ensure the survivability of its military and nuclear infrastructure.

Over a period of time, Iran has constructed an extensive network of underground tunnels and fortified facilities across numerous cities for the manufacturing, storage, and launch of missiles and drones.

It has also reportedly stockpiled approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60% purity in deeply buried underground bunkers considered secure against conventional aerial attacks.

During the 12-day June war, the United States attempted to neutralize three major Iranian nuclear sites using strategic bombers and bunker-buster munitions designed to penetrate hardened underground facilities.

Washington has claimed that all three nuclear installations were rendered inoperative. Tehran, however, disputes this assertion, maintaining that only the surface structures suffered damage, while the critical nuclear materials and core underground infrastructure remained intact.

Iranian officials insist that the affected facilities were restored to operational status after repair and recovery work.

Throughout the conflict, missile and drone launching sites across Iran were heavily targeted by the United States and Israel.

However, following the ceasefire on 11 April, Iranian engineering teams reportedly began rapid restoration efforts using bulldozers, cranes, and heavy machinery.

According to available reports, nearly 50 openings linked to 18 launch complexes have already been cleared and restored to operational readiness.

Iran is also believed to retain more than 70 percent of its missile and drone inventory, while its indigenous production capacity remains largely unaffected.

Iran’s Defensive/Offensive Capacities

Iran’s air defence capabilities have reportedly been further strengthened with Chinese assistance.

Simultaneously, both China and Russia are believed to be quietly supporting Tehran through satellite communications, intelligence sharing, electronic warfare support, and the supply of additional defensive and offensive systems.

This external backing has significantly enhanced Iran’s ability to challenge advanced American military assets, including stealth aircraft, drones, aerial refuelling platforms, naval vessels, and even aircraft carriers.

Iran has consequently demonstrated an enhanced capability to conduct precision strikes against selected targets in Israel as well as American-linked facilities in the Arab Gulf region.

Iran Capable of Fighting a Long War

Despite the extensive destruction of infrastructure, including damage to military and defence installations, and the considerable loss of life, Iran still possesses sufficient strategic depth, industrial resilience, and national resolve to sustain a prolonged conflict if required.

Iran’s Strengthened Negotiating Position

These factors have strengthened Iran’s negotiating position, enabling Tehran to engage in diplomacy from a position of relative confidence and resilience rather than weakness.

Iran is demanding credible guarantees against future military aggression. It also remains unwilling to compromise on its strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz or on what it describes as its legitimate right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear programme.

In addition, Tehran seeks a comprehensive ceasefire encompassing all active regional fronts, including Gaza and Lebanon.

From Tehran’s perspective, Israel — strongly backed by influential pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington — remains the principal obstacle to a durable peace settlement in the region.

Reports of Resignation of President Pezeshkian

Recent reports regarding the possible resignation of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and an alleged power struggle within the Iranian establishment must be treated cautiously because the information environment surrounding Iran is currently saturated with psychological warfare, propaganda, and disinformation from multiple sides.

Several foreign media outlets, particularly opposition-linked platforms, have claimed that Pezeshkian submitted a resignation letter complaining that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had effectively sidelined the civilian government and assumed dominant control over wartime and strategic decision-making.

However, Tehran has officially denied the reports. Iranian state-linked media and officials insist that the President remains in office and continues to perform his duties.

Reports on Internal Friction in Iran

That said, indications of internal friction within the Iranian power structure are credible and should not be dismissed outright.

The prolonged confrontation with the United States and Israel, the assassination of senior figures, economic pressure, sanctions, and debates over war strategy have almost certainly intensified tensions between:
*the elected civilian leadership,
*the clerical establishment,
*the IRGC,
*and pragmatic versus hardline factions.

IRGC A Decision Maker

Historically, whenever Iran faces existential external pressure, the military-security establishment gains greater influence.

In the current environment, the IRGC appears to have emerged as the principal decision-making center on matters related to national security and war management.

Even if resignation reports are exaggerated, they likely reflect genuine institutional strains inside Tehran.

Both Sides Desire End of War

At the same time, there are also signs that neither Washington nor Tehran seeks an unlimited regional war. Reports indicate that indirect negotiations regarding ceasefire extensions and renewed nuclear talks are continuing through intermediaries.

Obstacles

The possibility of a peace deal therefore cannot be ruled out, but several major obstacles remain:

Iran wants guarantees against future attacks and regime-change operations.

Tehran is unwilling to surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz or completely abandon uranium enrichment.

Villain of Peace

Israel strongly opposes any settlement that leaves Iran militarily and technologically capable.

The American establishment itself remains divided between advocates of diplomacy and supporters of coercive pressure.

Internal factionalism within Iran may complicate negotiations because hardliners distrust Western intentions and view compromise as strategic weakness.

Delay in signing up Peace Deal

Exxon’s Vice President has warned that a dramatic oil price surge is just 2–3 weeks away. The energy shock – and the economic collapse it triggers – is accelerating much faster than most realize.

The procrastination in finalizing a U.S.–Iran MOU is buying time for Netanyahu to continue his devastating war in Lebanon. Whether by design or default, diplomacy stalls while destruction and displacement continue-raising questions about whose interests these delays really serve.

An Assessment

In my assessment, a temporary ceasefire or limited accommodation remains more likely than a comprehensive peace settlement.

Both sides appear exhausted by the costs of escalation, yet neither side is politically prepared to concede on core strategic issues.

The current struggle is therefore moving from the battlefield to the diplomatic and intelligence arenas, where internal stability within Iran may become just as important as military capability.

Predicaments of Trump and Netanyahu

The ongoing war in West Asia has not only reshaped the regional strategic environment, but has also placed unprecedented political and personal pressure upon US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Both leaders are increasingly facing domestic criticism, international isolation, and growing questions regarding the political, legal, and moral consequences of their policies.

Trump’s Dilemma

President Trump entered the conflict projecting an image of strength and decisive leadership. However, the prolonged confrontation, mounting economic costs, fears of a wider regional war, rising oil prices, and American military casualties have negatively affected his domestic standing.

Recent opinion polls indicate declining approval ratings, with growing dissatisfaction over his handling of the Iran conflict and broader foreign policy.

Discussions regarding impeachment and concerns about his judgment have again surfaced within sections of the American political establishment and media.

While claims that Trump could be removed on grounds of “lunacy” remain political rhetoric rather than a constitutional reality, concerns regarding erratic decision-making, confrontational diplomacy, and the expansion of military commitments have contributed to increasing polarization within the United States.

Nonetheless, any formal impeachment process would remain politically difficult so long as his party retains sufficient congressional support.

Netanyahu’s Quandary

Netanyahu’s predicament is even more severe in the international arena. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant on charges linked to war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict.

These warrants have significantly damaged Israel’s international image and restricted Netanyahu’s diplomatic maneuverability, particularly in countries that recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Simultaneously, Netanyahu continues to face longstanding corruption charges and deep political divisions within Israel itself.

The Israeli leadership remains under pressure from sections of the public over security failures, economic strain, prolonged mobilization, and the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza war.

His political survival increasingly appears tied to the continuation of conflict and the preservation of his coalition.

Both Trump and Netanyahu are also confronting growing criticism across large parts of the world over what many countries, human rights organizations, and sections of global public opinion view as disproportionate and illegal military actions against Iran, Gaza, and other regional actors.

The humanitarian devastation in Gaza and the widening regional instability have further intensified international condemnation.

If Iran Emerges as a Victor

After more than sixty days of conflict — including forty days of intense warfare followed by a fragile ceasefire punctuated by hostile rhetoric and intermittent violations — Iran has emerged defiant and unbowed. It holds the strategic edge and negotiates from strength amid shifting regional power dynamics

Its Herculean resistance, coupled with its shrewd use of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic pressure point, compelled the United States to agree to a ceasefire and enter into negotiations.

If Iran ultimately succeeds in resisting combined American and Israeli pressure and emerges politically or strategically strengthened, the geopolitical consequences could be profound.

Firstly, it would seriously damage the aura of invincibility long associated with American military power and Israeli deterrence.

The inability to decisively subdue Iran despite overwhelming technological superiority would embolden resistance movements and independent regional actors.

Secondly, Iran’s survival and perceived victory would strengthen the emerging China-Russia-Iran strategic axis and accelerate the transition toward a more multipolar world order in which American dominance faces increasing constraints.

Thirdly, the credibility of Israel’s security doctrine could suffer a major setback. Israel has traditionally relied upon rapid, decisive wars and deterrence through overwhelming force.

A prolonged conflict ending without strategic victory would create psychological and political repercussions within Israeli society and the wider region.

Fourthly, pro-Western Arab regimes may face increasing domestic pressure as public sympathy across the Muslim world shifts further toward Iran and resistance-oriented narratives.

This could reshape regional alignments and weaken the momentum of normalization efforts between Israel and several Arab States.

Fifthly, the global energy and maritime security architecture could undergo lasting changes. Iran’s demonstrated ability to threaten strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz would force major powers to reconsider their dependence upon existing Gulf security arrangements.

At the same time, an Iranian “victory” would not necessarily produce regional stability.

A weakened but defiant Israel could become even more security-driven and unpredictable, while the United States may intensify sanctions, covert operations, cyber warfare, and proxy strategies instead of accepting strategic defeat.

Most Likely Outcome

Tehran’s strategic resilience is reshaping the regional balance.

The most likely outcome may therefore not be absolute victory for either side, but rather a long-term strategic stalemate that fundamentally alters the balance of power, exposes the limits of military coercion, and ushers in a new and uncertain phase in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Pakistan is no longer defined merely by geography; it has emerged as a pivotal geopolitical force. The world may choose to ignore Pakistan temporarily, but it can no longer exclude it from the major decisions shaping the region.

About the Author

Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.

He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, international columnist, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.