As the Middle East teeters on the edge of another potential war, the Israel–Iran confrontation has escalated into multi-domain warfare-espionage, cyber and drone campaigns, strategic airstrikes, proxy clashes, nuclear brinkmanship, and intense diplomatic jockeying. While Israel has achieved tactical air superiority, Iran is increasingly countering through asymmetric means-nuclear ambiguity, proxies, and limited missile strikes.

This is no longer a hypothetical scenario. Years of covert operations, proxy wars, and nuclear brinkmanship have laid the groundwork for open confrontation. The coming weeks will determine whether the conflict spirals regionally or moves toward managed de-escalation under global diplomatic pressure. What remains uncertain is not if conflict erupts-but how far-reaching and devastating its consequences will be.

The Strategic Landscape

At the heart of the crisis are three major actors with diverging interests: First is Israel-and the US-determined to deny Iran nuclear weapons. In line with the long-standing 'Begin Doctrine' of preemption and deterrence, Israel has repeatedly struck Iranian infrastructure in Syria, downed nuclear scientists and senior generals, and intensified sabotage. Following reports in late June 2025 that Iran crossed the 90% enrichment threshold for uranium, PM Netanyahu declared Israel is at a 'decisive point' in its history.

Second is Iran itself, facing mounting domestic dissent and crippling sanctions. Tehran has doubled on asymmetric warfare, leveraging its regional network of proxy forces-Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. Supreme Leader Khamenei warned last week that 'any Israeli aggression will be met with fire from all directions,' while Iranian missile units and theIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC) navy were placed on high alert.

Third are global powers walking a diplomatic tightrope. The US, Israel's security guarantor, is wary of being dragged into another Middle East war amid its commitments in Europe and Asia. Russia and China-partners of Iran-are urging restraint while quietly preparing to shield Tehran from collapse. Arab Gulf states, meanwhile, remain ambivalent-fearful of Iranian escalation but increasingly aligned with Israel, especially after the Riyadh–Jerusalem security understanding in May 2025.

International Responses: A Fractured Front

The UN has called for a 'peaceful resolution,' but global powers remain divided. China and Russia, both P5 members, condemned Israeli airstrikes as violations of Iranian sovereignty, while the US termed them 'unilateral actions,' reiterated support for Israel's security, and opposed nuclear proliferation-while keeping diplomatic distance.

At the 51stG7 summit last month, Western leaders expressed 'full solidarity' with Israel and warned Iran against further enrichment or proxy attacks, signaling clear alignment with Jerusalem. India also attended the summit, voicing concern but avoiding direct criticism of either side.

Meanwhile, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) issued a communique condemning Israel and calling on Muslim nations to unite and defend Iran's 'right to self-defense.' India declined to endorse this language. Pakistan, on the other hand, assured Iran: 'if Israel drops a nuclear bomb on Tehran, we will drop a nuclear bomb on them,' echoing its doctrine of nuclear solidarity with Muslim nations. These sharply contrasting responses from India and Pakistan-South Asia's nuclear rivals-reflect their divergent priorities, entangled in their own conflicts and contradictions.

This fragmented and polarized posture underscores the risks ahead: without coherent, unified pressure, escalation remains probable.

A War of Multiple Domains

Any Israel–Iran conflict would not resemble the conventional Arab-Israeli war. It would likely unfold across multiple domains: precision airstrikes, cyber warfare, drone swarms, naval blockades, and proxy attacks. Hezbollah could target Israeli cities saturating Israeli missile defenses; the Houthis may block shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea; Iranian militias could attack US bases across the region. Israel, for its part, has mobilized its northern reserve divisions and ordered its cyber units to preemptively neutralize Iranian command-and-control networks. The war's footprint would span Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen-and possibly the Gulf.

The US-initiated ceasefire might eventually consolidate but the geostrategic, geoeconomic, and humanitarian costs would endure.

Dangerous Scenarios

There are three escalatory paths are particularly alarming: One, is the regional conflagration: A multi-front war involving Iran's proxies, Israeli retaliation, and U.S. involvement would push the Middle East into broader chaos. Arab states would be forced to publicly choose sides.

Two, is the regime destabilization in Iran: A military defeat or economic collapse could trigger mass protests or even a power struggle within the IRGC, leading to unpredictable internal turmoil.

Thirdly, is the nuclear crisis: Should Iran approach nuclear breakout and Israel respond preemptively, the risk of nuclear exchange-whether direct or involving radiological attacks-would increase. Such a scenario could provoke wider global intervention.

Why South Asia Should Pay Attention

While the battlefield lies in the Middle East, South Asia cannot remain untouched. The region depends heavily on Gulf oil and trade routes. Prolonged conflict would spike fuel prices, disrupt economies, and strain fragile growth.

Nepal, as a neutral and non-aligned state, should not remain passive. Instead, it must revive the core principles of its foreign policy-nonalignment, peace diplomacy, and strategic caution. SAARC and BIMSTEC, though weakened, offer venues for preventive dialogue. Nepal's voice at the UN should stress immediate de-escalation.

Energy contingency planning is also vital. A price shock would severely impact Nepal's already fragile energy security. Diversification and regional energy cooperation must become strategic priorities.

A Global Failure of Diplomacy?

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the crisis is the absence of credible diplomacy. Despite clear warning signs, no emergency summit, no high-level mediation, and no meaningful backchannel dialogue have emerged. The global order seems paralyzed-caught between rhetorical commitments to peace and quiet preparations for war.

This must change. Global powers-particularly China, the U.S., Russia, and the EU-must reopen dialogue with both Jerusalem and Tehran, enforce red lines, and use incentives and pressure to avert the worst outcomes. Proxy actors must be restrained through a mix of inducements and coercive diplomacy. Failure to act now risks crossing a point of no return.

Conclusion

As Israel and Iran inch toward collision, the world cannot afford to stand by. Whether the trigger is a miscalculation, a rogue militia, or a preemptive strike, the result could be a geopolitical shockwave that reshapes the Middle East-and the global order-with alarming speed.

The most plausible outcome may still be a limited but intense conflict ending through diplomacy. Yet scenarios ranging from regional war to internal upheaval and nuclear escalation remain dangerously viable.

This is not just Israel's war or Iran's. It is a fault line in the global security system. The Middle East could erupt. Alliances could fracture. Markets could tumble. South Asia's strategic calculations must adapt to a new reality. The clock is ticking. Silence is not strategy. It is complicity. Let the world act-before the storm arrives.

Binoj Basnyat is a retired Maj General of the Nepali Army, a strategic affairs analyst affiliated with Rangsit University of Thailand.