The causes and future of the conflict between Isreal and Iran

by Wang Jin

The flags of Iran (C, front) and Israel (C, back) flutter during an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters, in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. /VCG

Editor's note: Wang Jin is the director of the Center of Strategic Studies at Northwest University.

After 12 days of intense conflict, Israel and Iran finally reached a ceasefire agreement. This round of hostilities stemmed from the ideological confrontation between the two nations, which further intensified their disputes over Iran's nuclear program. In the aftermath, while the United States, Iran and Israel all expressed a desire to maintain peace, as disagreements over Iran's nuclear issue persist, a resurgence of conflict appears to be only a matter of time.

Divisions between Israel and Iran

The war between Israel and Iran came under the long-lasting hostilities between the two states, while the hostilities resulted from deeply rooted divisions.

First, the political discourses in both Iran and Israel portray each other as their major threat. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran restructured its domestic political system based on Ayatollah Khomeini's vision of "Velayat-e Faqih" (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), as outlined in his book "Islamic Governance." In this new Islamic discourse, Iran assumed a dual identity as a revolutionary leader and ideological exporter within the Middle East, calling on other Islamic nations to resist Western intervention and reconfigure the region's political order around Tehran. Given Israel's close ties with the United States, its association with Zionist ideology and its long-standing "illegal" occupation of Palestinian territories, it naturally became a hostile target in Iran's political narrative.

Similarly, Israel regards Iran as its principal threat. From an identity perspective, the modern Arab nationalism and pan-Islamism, which dominate political thought in much of the Middle East, define Zionism as the most pressing threat to the unity of both Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. Zionism links Israel closely with the West, while the pan-Islam ideology highlights the importance of Middle Eastern states' independence. Early Zionist leaders, such as Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, envisioned Israel as an extension of the West in the Middle East. Therefore, after 1979, when the new Islamic Republic was established in Iran, Israel's stance toward Iran predictably became hostile.

Second, Iran and Israel hold opposing views on Iran's nuclear program. Iran believes it has the legal rights to peacefully develop nuclear technology. Since the beginning of its nuclear research, Tehran has emphasized its commitment to the "peaceful use of nuclear energy." Iran claims to actively cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), asserting that it is the only country in the world that has publicly disclosed its nuclear facilities. In contrast, Iran criticizes Israel as a de facto nuclear power that escapes scrutiny, accusing the West – particularly the IAEA – of bias and hypocrisy for turning a blind eye to Israel's nuclear activities.

From Israel's perspective, Iran's claims of peaceful nuclear intentions are untrustworthy. Israel argues that Iran engaged in secret nuclear activity before 2002, which was only exposed due to efforts by Israel and the U.S. Israel maintains that Iran only agreed to limited inspections and transparency under the pressure of international sanctions, and even then, the IAEA's access covered only part of Iran's facilities. Since the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Iran has gradually suspended cooperation with the IAEA, making effective international monitoring impossible. Israel thus suspects that Iran's true goal is to develop nuclear weapons and believes only firm external pressure can stop it.

Third, Iran and Israel differ in their assessment of Iran's current nuclear capabilities. Iran acknowledges that its uranium enrichment levels have exceeded the 3.67 percent limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal, reaching 60 percent, but emphasizes that this still falls short of the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material. Iran repeatedly insists that its nuclear program is for power generation and scientific research, fully in line with the principles of peaceful use of nuclear energy, and asserts that as a sovereign nation, it has the right to pursue such development without external interference.

However, Israel argues that Iran's enrichment has already approached the 90 percent mark. In late May, some Israeli think tanks estimated that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within one to two weeks. From Israel's viewpoint, Iran's nuclear ambitions have always aimed at weaponization, not peaceful energy. With U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations deadlocked and Iran's enrichment and stockpile growing, Israel deemed it necessary to take military action to curb Iran's nuclear progress.

Uncertainties of the ceasefire

Following 12 days of conflict, a ceasefire was reached among the United States, Israel and Iran. However, the recent clashes have profoundly impacted the strategic perceptions of all three parties, and the future of Iran's nuclear issue and the broader Middle East remains highly uncertain.

The U.S. maintains an ambiguous and wavering position. Washington demands that Iran should abandon its nuclear development and surrender its enriched uranium. Yet, Washington vacillates between seeking diplomatic negotiations and contemplating military strikes. It hopes to use military strikes as leverage but also seeks to avoid deep military entanglement that could divert its global strategic focus. This strategic ambiguity hampers international coordination efforts, as all parties must simultaneously prepare for both political engagement and potential warfare.

In Iran, hardline voices have grown stronger. After the conflict, Iran cut off cooperation with the IAEA and opposed a resolution passed on June 12 by the IAEA concerning Iran's nuclear program. Tehran also called for the IAEA to investigate Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. Domestically, growing voices inside Iran calling to develop nuclear weapons have surged. Some Iranian hardliners argue that Israel dared to strike Iran because Tehran lacks nuclear deterrence – if Iran had nuclear weapons, they claim, neither Israel nor the U.S. would dare to attack.

Israel remains deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear capability. Though it claims to have set back Iran's nuclear program by 20 years through recent strikes, some in Israel believe the damage was limited and Iran may recover its nuclear capabilities within months. Despite sustained attacks, Iran demonstrated the ability to launch long-range missiles at Israeli targets and has not experienced significant internal unrest. If Israel assesses that Iran's nuclear capabilities are rapidly advancing again, it may resume military strikes.

A major problem is the lack of a functioning dialogue mechanism on Iran's nuclear issue. One reason the conflict erupted is the absence of effective communication channels between Israel and Iran. Israel distrusts international evaluations and refuses direct dialogue with Iran, resorting instead to military action to express its concerns. The recent conflict has disrupted the planned sixth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, which were scheduled for June 15, and there is no clear timeline for the resumption of the talks.

Although a short-term resumption of conflict is unlikely between Israel and Iran, the unresolved nature of the nuclear issue and persistent disagreements suggest that another confrontation may only be a matter of time. The risk of regional escalation due to Iran's nuclear ambitions still requires the active attention and coordination of the international community and regional powers.