In the Middle East, the rivalry between Iran and Israel is today one of the most concerning geopolitical tensions in the international system. Yet, contrary to the image of an imminent and direct war, the reality is more complex. For more than a decade, the two states have been engaged in an indirect confrontation that many analysts describe as a “shadow war.” This confrontation manifests itself through cyberattacks, clandestine operations, targeted assassinations, and occasional strikes against military infrastructure, often without any official claim of responsibility. It allows both adversaries to exert strategic pressure on each other while avoiding, so far, a large-scale direct confrontation. At the heart of this rivalry lies the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. For Israeli leaders, the possibility of an Iran possessing nuclear weapons represents an existential threat. Israel has therefore consistently maintained that it reserves the right to carry out preventive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities if certain red lines are crossed. For its part, Iran views Israel’s military power and its close alliance with the United States as a constant source of pressure in the region. This mutual distrust fuels a logic of deterrence in which each side seeks to demonstrate its capacity for retaliation. The gradual disappearance of strong diplomatic mechanisms has also contributed to making the situation more unstable. When channels of dialogue and verification function properly, they help reduce misunderstandings and limit the risk of escalation.

In their absence, every military movement can be interpreted as preparation for an offensive. In this context, one of the major dangers lies less in a deliberate decision to start a war than in the possibility of a miscalculation. A strike considered defensive by one side may be perceived as a declaration of war by the other. If an open conflict were to erupt, it is unlikely that it would remain limited to a bilateral confrontation. The Middle East is structured by alliances and networks of armed actors that could quickly expand the theater of operations. Groups allied with Iran, particularly in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, could become involved, turning a localized war into a major regional crisis. In such a scenario, the strategic maritime routes of the Persian Gulf and global energy markets would be directly affected, with economic consequences far beyond the region. Despite these risks, several factors still help restrain the outbreak of a full-scale war. The military and human cost of such a conflict would be extremely high for both sides. Israel possesses considerable technological and military power, while Iran has significant missile capabilities and a network of regional allies capable of opening multiple fronts.

A prolonged war could also draw the United States directly into the conflict and destabilize the entire Middle East. For this reason, the current dynamic largely rests on a strategy of deterrence and controlled escalation. Each side seeks to demonstrate its determination and its ability to respond, while avoiding crossing the threshold that would trigger a generalized war. Recent history in the region shows that crises often follow a similar pattern: a limited strike, a calibrated retaliation, and then a phase of de-escalation intended to prevent a wider conflagration. Thus, the risk of war between Iran and Israel is real and higher than it has been in the past, but for now it remains contained by the strategic calculations of the various actors involved. In such a volatile environment, the main danger remains the possibility of a misinterpreted incident or an unforeseen escalation. In an international system marked by mistrust and rivalry, sometimes a single event is enough to transform an indirect confrontation into an open conflict.