In a volatile region already teetering on the edge, the outbreak of a direct military conflict between Iran and Israel shocked the world.

But as the dust settles and the global intelligence community sifts through the events, a more complex and unsettling picture that points to what can reasonably be inferred as a shadow operation orchestrated from Washington is emerging. The war, now largely paused following an uneasy ceasefire, may have been less about regional hostilities and more about strategic experimentation.

The United States, by all appearances, sought to use Israel as a proxy to test the military depth and deterrent capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This clandestine objective, however, did not go as planned. Far from revealing a weak, fractured state, the war unveiled a unified, capable, and strategically sophisticated Iranian military that weathered the storm and retaliated with precision and restraint. In doing so, Tehran demonstrated not only its military evolution but also its understanding of asymmetric power in a world of shifting alliances and opaque battlefields.

Phase One: The Spark in the Shadows

What began as a sudden escalation by way of Israeli drone incursions, cyber-attacks and airstrikes on infrastructure in Tehran on 13 June 2025 dubbed “Operation Rising Lion” quickly snowballed into a full-blown confrontation. Israel framed its actions as preemptive defense against an “imminent Iranian threat.” However, what appeared to be clandestine communications between U.S. and Israeli war planners suggested a broader agenda. The United States, wary of direct war yet eager to test Iranian capabilities under real conditions, supported the Israeli offensive in the hopes of revealing vulnerabilities that sanctions and sabotage had failed to expose.

Washington underestimated Iran’s readiness.

Less than 24 hours after the Israeli attacks, Iran began launching coordinated strikes on the same day. These strikes continued relentlessly in the days that followed, targeting multiple locations across Israel, including:

Tel Aviv: Some missiles landed in the city, causing damage and injuries.

Ramat Gan: A missile impacted near several high-rise buildings, damaging apartments and injuring 22 people.

Holon: Missiles struck the city, causing damage.

Beersheba (Soroka Medical Center): A direct hit on the hospital caused extensive damage, a suspected chemical leak, and injured 71 people.

Azor: A cluster bomb hit a home in the city.

Bat Yam: Buildings were damaged, although specific details on casualties aren’t available for this location in the context of June 13 attacks. However, Iran did launch attacks on Bat Yam on June 15, causing significant damage and casualties.

Drone swarms disabled radar systems, and precision missiles struck supply depots and fuel storage units. Iran’s use of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) combined with kamikaze drones indicated not only planning, but advanced intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities.

Western analysts noted that Iran’s initial strikes were measured and tactically disciplined in targeting infrastructure. This wasn’t an emotional lashing-out; it was strategic messaging.

Phase Two: Assassinations and Tactical Escalation

Unable to maintain its battlefield advantage through conventional engagement, Israel intensified its covert operations. In what Iran later labeled “state-sponsored terrorism,” several high-ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders were assassinated within a single day. These killings, while effective in stalling Iran’s battlefield momentum, sparked outrage within Tehran and across the Shia Crescent.

Yet even in grief, Iran did not lose composure. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a rare televised address, stating that the death of the martyred high-ranking military officers would never discourage nor weaken the determination of the courageous Iranian warriors in exacting revenge against the evil forces of the treasonous Zionists.

Iran responded by targeting Israeli military assets and cyber-attacking Israel’s electric grid, disrupting energy flow in southern districts for hours. For each Israeli advantage, Iran found an asymmetrical response rarely matching firepower directly, but continuously recalibrating the cost for Israel and for the United States.

.

Protest in Tehran against Israeli strikes on Iran, 20 June 2025 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

.

Phase Three: The U.S. Intervention and the Nuclear Site Gambit

As the war dragged on with no conclusive outcome, and as Israel’s momentum appeared to stall, the U.S. intervened openly for the first time. In a surprise air campaign conducted over a single 36-hour window, U.S. B-2 stealth bombers targeted three of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow.

What followed was, by U.S. standards, a technical success but in reality a strategic failure.

Isfahan and Natanz, long assumed to be functioning enrichment sites, had already been emptied weeks prior in a deliberate Iranian deception maneuver. American bombs hit metal shells and concrete but no uranium, no scientists, no critical infrastructure.

Fordow, the crown jewel of Iran’s underground nuclear program, suffered only superficial damage. Located 80 meters beneath a mountain, its thick rock shielding rendered even the most advanced American bunker-busters ineffective. Photos later released by Iranian state media showed technicians walking unharmed through control rooms just hours after the strike.

The Iranian response was immediate but not reckless.

Phase Four: Tehran’s Message from Doha

In an unprecedented move, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Doha, Qatar which is considered as the largest American base in the Middle East. However, intelligence analysts quickly recognized that this was not an annihilation strike. No casualties were reported, and none of the base’s critical infrastructure was destroyed.

Instead, the very few missiles fired by Iran were easily intercepted in the air and never landed on critical areas. Satellite footage and telemetry analysis later confirmed that the missiles had been deliberately programmed to fall short of major buildings.

It was a statement, not a strike.

By choosing Al-Udeid which is a symbolic heart of U.S. power projection in the Gulf and by ensuring that no lives were lost, Iran delivered a dual message: We can strike you anywhere, but we choose when and how.

Phase Five: The Ceasefire and Strategic Rethink

Faced with a war that had gone from controlled simulation to spiraling escalation, and recognizing that further actions risked regional destabilization, the United States quietly began to initiate a ceasefire.

The official announcement came some hours after the Doha strike on the same day. Trump’s declaration carried with it the tacit message that a ceasefire was crucial for “regional stability” and “future de-escalation mechanisms.” Whatever the expressed intent was, the reality was clear: Iran had passed the test. And the U.S. and Israel had learned an expensive lesson.

Aftermath: The New Strategic Equation

While no formal treaties were signed, and hostilities remain only frozen, the Iran-Israel war fundamentally altered the region’s strategic architecture:

Iran emerged with elevated status among its allies and even some adversaries, showcasing military capability, strategic restraint, and cyber-war superiority.

Israel, though tactically agile, was revealed to be heavily reliant on U.S. support when confronting Iran head-on.

The U.S., for all its military might, failed to extract meaningful data from the war other than confirming that Iran is no longer the brittle state it once believed.

Meanwhile, global actors like Russia, China, and India watched closely, reassessing their own diplomatic calculations in the Middle East. The war may have been brief, but its consequences are long-term.

Conclusion: A Shift in the Balance

The Iran-Israel conflict, instigated under the radar by American strategic interests, inadvertently proved that Iran is a power not to be provoked lightly. It is a nation that understands modern warfare not only through missiles and men, but through optics, patience, and the ability to shape outcomes without appearing to control them. They were trying to break Iran. Instead, they found out Iran already knew how not to break.

And so, for now, the missiles are silent but the message is not forgotten.

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Aftermath of the Iranian attacks in Bat Yam (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link