The standoff between Iran and Israel can no longer be understood through the old, manageable rules of engagement. It has become a direct contest of will, a test of sovereignty, and a battle to enforce red lines.
What has happened since June is more than a brief tactical fight. It marks a deliberate shift in Israel’s strategy, from one of quiet containment to a posture of clear public deterrence. This move is seen as necessary to stop the Iranian threat from becoming a permanent, unchangeable fact.
From an observer’s point of view, the real difference is not in how many strikes occurred nor what was hit. It is about the message that was sent. That message is simple: If Israel’s existence is threatened, no target is beyond reach. The fact that Israel reached Iran’s command structure was not luck. It was the result of a major intelligence advantage built up over many years. It shows that Israel can now strike at the very heart of Iranian decision-making, not just at proxy forces on the edges.
This context makes Israel’s temporary inclusion of Iran’s top leader on its target list highly significant. This was before Washington stepped in to pause the option.
Israel’s idea of deterrence has grown. It is no longer limited to military bases or allied militias.
New way of thinking
The conflict is now viewed as a clash with an entire governing system. That regime will be held fully responsible for any step toward threatening Israel’s existence. This new way of thinking presents Tehran with a difficult choice. If Iran escalates further, the fight could change from targeting its capabilities to targeting its leadership directly.
In fact, the limited role played by Iran’s regional allies in the last round was not a sign of Tehran’s restraint. It was the result of a deliberate and successful effort by Israel, backed clearly by the United States. Their goal was to isolate the main source of danger and to keep the conflict from spreading to multiple fronts, which would create uncontrollable chaos. This careful approach is itself a warning to anyone who relies on proxy warfare.
In my view, Israel now has the ability and the means to force a final end to a confrontation with Iran, if it is pushed to that point. It is not just a matter of military strength. It is about having the power to cripple Iran’s ability to make decisions, its economy, and its sovereign functions all at the same time.
Air superiority, cyber dominance, precise intelligence, and seamless cooperation with US missile defense and space surveillance systems make such a decisive outcome a real possibility. However, Israel has, so far, chosen not to take this path. It understands that such an action would not just be a single strike, but an event that would change the entire regional order.
Unambiguous message
Evidently, Israel’s message is now unambiguous. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated this position plainly. Israel is not looking to escalate, but if it is forced to fight, it will respond with greater force and greater intensity. It will act to ensure the threat is removed at its root. This is not the language of emotion. It is a clear statement of a deterrence policy based on decisive superiority, not on an equal response.
Along the same lines, remarks from US President Donald Trump added another layer of deterrence. He stated that Iran had missed an opportunity for a less costly settlement before the strikes began. The losses Iran suffered, he suggested, were a direct result of turning down that chance.
The American message today is just as straightforward. Military pressure is not a replacement for negotiations but a tool to force negotiations from a position of strength. Anyone who refuses this path will bear the costs of further escalation.
The most dangerous possibility that Tehran’s current reckless thinking might produce would be a move to widely use fissionable warheads. Crossing that line would mean Iran’s actions are no longer seen as a tactical escalation. They would be viewed as a strategic decision to fight an existential war.
In that situation, targeting the regime’s leadership becomes a realistic option – not for revenge, but as a final defensive step to break Iran’s will to escalate and to prevent the region from falling into a total, uncontrollable war.
Israeli officials are well aware that Iran will keep trying to rebuild its capabilities and improve its missiles and defenses. But past experience has shown that the real difference is not in how many missiles one has. The gap lies in the quality of intelligence and the ability to turn that intelligence into decisive action. That gap still clearly favors Israel and its allies.
On the whole, we are now in a phase in which deterrence is no longer just a signal but a sovereign choice, ready to be used if necessary. Iran faces an unprecedented test of how far it can risk going. Israel has the tools to impose a decisive end and is displaying them openly. The United States is managing the overall pace, trying to prevent a total explosion without weakening the logic of deterrence.
This is a genuine moment on the edge.
The future will lead either to a forced calm or to a descent into a conflict that will redefine the balance of power in the Middle East for generations.
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.