Nacima Kerouad | June 29, 2025
After a short but intense round of fighting, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on 24 June, 2025, ending what became the first direct war between the two countries in history. For decades, their hostility had played out through Iran’s proxy groups, cyberattacks, and indirect clashes; this time, however, it turned into open warfare.
The conflict erupted on 13 June, when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a major military campaign targeting Iran’s key nuclear and military sites, including the Natanz enrichment facility. The strikes also killed several senior Iranian nuclear scientists and military commanders. The operation came just one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran was no longer complying with its nuclear obligations, and as intelligence showed Iran was nearing the ability to build a nuclear weapon. At the same time, talks between Iran and the United States to revive a nuclear deal had completely stalled, leaving diplomacy at a dead end and tensions at a breaking point.
This article explores how the relationship between Iran and Israel transformed from a strategic cooperation under the Shah’s leadership before 1979, to open hostility in the decades that followed under the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, which made opposing Israel a core part of its identity. We’ll look at Iran’s political and ideological transformation, the collapse of its ties with Israel, and the core beliefs that continue to shape its foreign policy. From that point on, tensions grew year after year, eventually leading to the 2025 war dubbed the “12-Day War.” The article also explores how this long-standing rivalry shaped the recent fighting and the ceasefire that brought it to a pause.
Iran pre-1970: Pahlavi Monarchy
Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran was governed by the Pahlavi monarchy, under Reza Shah and later Mohammad Reza Shah, who had been in power since 1941. Under his leadership, Iran had seen a period of modernisation and westernisation, most notably reflected in the Shah’s ‘White Revolution’ during the 1960s.
The White Revolution was a series of reforms that reshaped the nation’s social structure, economy, and political landscape. It was named “white” to stress the revolution’s peaceful nature, conveying a top-down, non-violent push for rapid modernisation in Iran to avoid the bloodshed seen in other revolutions, such as those in Russia or China.
One of the core objectives of the White Revolution was to weaken Iran’s traditional landowning aristocracy, a powerful class closely aligned with the country’s conservative religious establishment. Another objective was to transfer political and economic power unquestionably to the Monarchy. By doing so, the Shah wanted to remove potential rivals and strengthen his authority. In parallel with this political goal, the Shah sought to drive rapid economic growth and upgrade Iran’s infrastructure by expanding road networks, introducing machinery into agriculture, and boosting industrial development, women’s suffrage, access to education, and health care services.
The main incentive behind these reforms was the Shah’s desire to deter communist and Islamic revolutions. Given the fact that the Cold War was at its peak and revolutionary ideologies were gaining ground, the ‘white revolution’ emerged as a strategic response to deep-rooted social and economic discontent, particularly issues like poverty, inequality, and widespread illiteracy. Furthermore, the Shah sought to build popular support through land redistribution and reforms aimed at benefiting peasants and the working class, cultivating a loyal base to counter the influence of the traditional elite and emerging opposition movements.
Iran’s foreign policy during this period was strongly tied to Western countries, specifically with the United States and, quietly, with Israel. As part of the Cold War, Iran joined the U.S.-backed Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) to help block Soviet influence. Although Iran didn’t publicly recognise Israel to keep its reputation intact in the Muslim world, the two nations had a close strategic partnership, particularly in oil trade, intelligence sharing, and developing military capabilities, making their relationship stand out in the region under the Shah’s leadership.
Israel-Iran relations pre-1979
Both Israel and Iran saw Arab nationalism, especially under leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the growing power of the Soviet Union in the Middle East as serious threats. Even though Iran never officially recognised Israel, it was one of the few Muslim-majority countries that chose to work with Israel on a diplomatic and strategic level. They set up unofficial missions in each other’s countries, using different names. By the 1960s and 70s, their cooperation became highly organised and robust. This partnership was part of Israel’s “Periphery Doctrine,” which focused on building alliances with non-Arab countries in the region, such as Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia.
Moreover, Iran and Israel worked closely together on military and intelligence matters. In fact, Israel sold Iran advanced weapons, and they even teamed up on covert initiatives, like “Project Flower” in the late 1970s, where Iran helped fund Israeli missile research. Their intelligence agencies, Iran’s SAVAK and Israel’s Mossad, also cooperated on regional security. For instance, one major area they worked on together was helping Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, since both countries wanted to weaken Saddam Hussein’s government.
Economically, Iran played a vital role by supplying oil to Israel, especially after the 1956 Suez Crisis. To keep the operation confidential, the two countries built the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, which helped move Iranian oil to the Mediterranean. They had to resort to complex legal set-ups and European companies to keep the oil shipments hidden. In return, Israel provided Iran with agricultural expertise, telecommunications equipment, and other civilian technologies. This economic exchange was highly important for Israel, since it didn’t have any reliable energy sources, and at the same time, it helped Iran grow its business ties in the region without upsetting the Arab countries.
The Cold War had a big impact on the relationship between Iran and Israel. Both countries were close allies of the United States and supported Western ideology and policies. The U.S. saw them as key partners in keeping the Middle East stable and sometimes even helped – or looked the other way – when they collaborated. This partnership made both Iran and Israel stronger, especially as they tried to deal with threats from the Soviet Union and Arab countries like Syria and Iraq.
Even though Iran and Israel had strong behind-the-scenes ties, the Shah had to be careful with how Iran appeared to the Arab world. In public, he often spoke out in favour of the Palestinians and criticised Israel’s actions. For instance, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Iran gave financial and oil support to Egypt and Syria in order to stay on good terms with Arab countries. This balancing act – quiet cooperation with Israel while showing public support for Arab causes – was part of the Shah’s strategy to boost Iran’s influence in the region without upsetting its neighbours.
Unfortunately, this alliance between Israel and Iran came to an abrupt end following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the new Iranian regime overthrew the Shah, adopted a hardline anti-Israel stance, and severed all diplomatic ties.
Iran post-1979: the fall of the Pahlavi Monarchy
While the Shah’s “White Revolution” led to tangible improvement, it didn’t appeal to traditional rural communities and amplified the preexisting socioeconomic inequalities. Thus, many Iranians, especially members of the working class and conservative religious sectors, felt disconnected from these rapid and radical reforms and, importantly, the growing Western influence in the society. The Shah promoted secularism and nationalism by bringing to the fore Iran’s pre-Islamic Persian heritage over its Islamic identity, therefore alienating Iran from clerical influence and religious conservatism, which had faced aggressive opposition from the Shi’a clergy.
In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s strongest opponents, condemned both the Shah’s reforms and his alignment with Western and Israeli interests. Khomeini’s criticism resonated with a broad spectrum of Iranian society who felt that the Shah’s actions went against their culture and values. Khomeini believed that the Shah’s close ties with the U.S and Israel violatedIslamic values and put Iran’s freedom, culture, and honour at risk. He famously referred to the U.S the ‘Great Satan,’ viewing it as the greatest threat to Iran’s Islamic identity and independence, and labelled Israel the ‘Little Satan,’ regarding it as an unjust occupier of Muslim lands, an oppressor of Palestinians, and a force that influenced U.S policies in the Middle East.
All of these factors led to the overthrow of the Shah during the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. By February 1979, Iran had undergone a dramatic transformation – from a Western-backed monarchy to a theocratic Islamic republic. Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution replaced the Shah’s secular rule with a system called vilayat-al-faqih, meaning “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist,” which allowed a senior cleric known as the Supreme Leader the final say over all major decisions in the country.
The new government combined elected bodies, like the president and parliament, with powerful unelected religious institutions, like the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts. While Iran still holds elections, all candidates are strictly screened, and true authority rests within the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and the groups tied to him, in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has grown into a major force in both the military and the economy.
Domestically, the Islamic Republic launched a broad campaign to reshape society under strict Islamic principles, which had a big impact on women’s rights, education, and everyday life. Under the Islamic Republic, laws enforced the wearing of the hijab, gender segregation, and restrictions on personal freedoms – often carried out by bodies like the morality police. Moreover, the government keeps a tight grip on the media and the internet, using censorship and harsh measures to silence independent journalism. Over the years, major protests against the regime took place, like the 1999 students demonstration also known as the “18 Tir”, the 2009 Green Movement, and the 2022-2023 “Women, Life, Freedom.” Unfortunately, all of these protests were met with strong government crackdowns.
The Islamic Republic’s foreign policy was shaped by its revolutionary ideology and strong opposition to Western influence – particularly from the United States and Israel. The regime severed ties with both countries, voiced staunch support for the Palestinian cause, and sought to export its revolutionary model by backing groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Shi’a militias in Iraq. Over time, experts have pointed out that Iran’s approach became a mix of ideological goals and strategic thinking, by using proxy groups to expand its influence and push back against the U.S and Israeli influence in the region. Iran’s nuclear programme became a major global concern in the 2000s, amid growing fears it could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) marked a significant breakthrough by placing limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal unraveled, however, after the United States withdrew from it in 2018 under President Trump.
Israel-Iran relations post-1979: Hostility by proxy
Following the 1979 revolution, anti-Zionism and anti-Semetism became key parts of the state ideology, as Iran positioned itself as a champion of the Palestinian resistance, calling for Israel’s destruction. Opposing Israel became a core pillar of Iran’s revolutionary identity, which intertwined with its goal of leading the Muslim World. The regime replaced a relationship based on shared strategic interests with one rooted in deep ideological hostility.
Yet, this deep hostility didn’t stop Iran and Israel from engaging in limited short-term cooperation when it suited their interests. After Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, threatening the survival of the new Islamic regime and boosting Iraq’s regional power, Israel quietly offered military support to Iran, mediated by the U.S. This cooperation became part of the ‘Iran-Contra Affair,’ where U.S-made missiles were sent to Iran through Israel, and the money from those sales was used to fund anti-communist rebels (the Contras) in Nicaragua.
However, this episode didn’t soften Iran’s stance towards Israel or lead to any meaningful improvement in their relationship. On the contrary, even while accepting indirect military help from Israel, Iran’s regime continued its open hostility by supporting armed confrontation against Israel through its Shi’a proxy groups in Lebanon.
Since 1979, Iran has used its proxies to gain “strategic depth” and apply pressure on Israel without engaging directly. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran has built an extensive network of proxy groups across the Middle East by providing funding, training, and weapons. The most prominent among these are Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militias like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Gaza. By 2020, U.S. officials estimated that Iran was giving Hezbollah around $700 million per year, and roughly $100 million annually to Palestinian factions. This support has been critical, with analysts noting that Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel would not have been possible without years of backing from Iran. Over decades, these groups have carried out thousands of rocket attacks and military operations against Israel, including major conflicts such as the 2006 and 2023 wars with Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza. Though Iran denies exerting direct control over these groups, it strategically uses them to extend its influence and confront Israel.
As mentioned, one of the main sources of tension between the two countries is Iran’s nuclear programme. For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is viewed as an existential threat. The prospect is seen as intolerable, given that the destruction of Israel remains a core tenet of the Iranian regime. Each step Iran takes towards developing nuclear capabilities has only intensified the hostility. Many analysts argue that Iran’s nuclear ambitions lie at the heart of the conflict, with Israel firmly opposing any move towards weapons-grade uranium enrichment.
The 2015 nuclear deal temporarily curbed Iran’s nuclear programme, but tensions escalated after the U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2018. By 2024–2025, Iran had significantly expanded its uranium enrichment beyond the deal’s limits and restricted international inspectors’ access to key sites. As a result, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has become one of Israel’s top strategic priorities.
The 12 Day War
In June 2025, as intelligence reports confirmed that Iran was enriching uranium at increasingly advanced levels, Israel launched a major airstrike on 13 June deep inside Iranian territory, targeting multiple high-value sites. These included the Natanz enrichment facility (known for housing Iran’s most advanced centrifuges) and the Khondab heavy water reactor, as well as military bases and leadership compounds. The strikes reportedly killed senior nuclear scientists and IRGC officers. According to experts, Israel’s operation “Rising Lion” was designed to inflict long-term damage on Iran’s nuclear capabilities by destroying both infrastructure and technical expertise that would be difficult to replace.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Israeli bombs had “directly impacted the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz”, destroying thousands of centrifuges and seriously damaging power systems.
This dramatic escalation came amid ongoing, but stalled, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over reviving a nuclear agreement. After months of failed diplomacy and growing evidence that Iran was nearing weapons-grade enrichment, the U.S. also took action by striking several suspected nuclear-related facilities and IRGC missile sites, signalling Washington’s willingness to back Israel’s efforts and increase pressure on Tehran.
In response to Israeli airstrikes, Iran launched a series of missile and drone attacks, firing around 200 ballistic missiles in six waves targeting Central and Northern Israel. Some of the missiles and debris hit densely-populated areas near Tel Aviv and Haifa, causing injuries and some civilian deaths. Experts noted that the attacks were smaller than expected, because Israeli strikes had already destroyed many of Iran’s missile launch sites, limiting Iran’s ability to fire more. At the same time, the Israeli attack on Iran caused significant civilian casualties, with reports indicating around 600 civilians killed during the strikes.
After nearly two weeks of fighting, and following additional U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire on 23 June. The agreement, reportedly brokered with help from Qatar, called for both sides to stop hostilities. Israel agreed once its leaders felt they had hit their main target: damaging Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran also said it would stop its attacks if Israel did the same.
The ceasefire officially began on 24 June. The global market responded quickly, with oil prices dropping as hopes for de-escalation rose. However, both Russia and regional observers warned the truce might not hold. Both sides soon accused each other of breaking the agreement, and President Trump publicly criticised Israel for some of the early violations. While the fighting paused, tensions remained high, and military leaders in both countries warned they were ready to act if things flared up again.
The need for a greater vision
To truly understand today’s conflict between Israel and Iran, we have to look at the full arc, beginning with their quiet cooperation before 1979 and the dramatic rupture that followed the Islamic Revolution. What changed wasn’t just leadership, but ideology. The Islamic Republic didn’t simply cut ties with Israel; it enshrined Israel’s destruction as a core part of its revolutionary mission. That’s not speculation – it’s spelled out in official doctrine, echoed in countless speeches, and reinforced through decades of support for militant groups openly committed to Israel’s elimination.
This is why Israel doesn’t view Iran’s nuclear programme as a distant concern – it sees it as a direct threat to its survival. After all, if any other country faced an enemy whose official policy calls for its destruction and who is steadily advancing toward nuclear capability, what would it do? Wait? Stay silent? Hope for a change of heart?
This conflict isn’t about showing force for the sake of power; it’s about preventing a regime founded on the promise of your destruction from gaining the tools to carry it out. It’s about survival in the face of ideological hostility.
But while security actions may be necessary, they are not enough. Strength must be paired with vision. We have a responsibility to understand the deeper forces at play, because ideology can be more dangerous than bombs. It shapes minds, fuels division, and condones violence. That’s why we must also work towards a future grounded not in fear and dehumanisation, but in diplomacy, empathy, and shared values.
In the end, lasting peace will only be possible when we stop seeing each other as enemies by default and start recognising that, beneath the politics and pain, we are all human. That doesn’t mean ignoring real threats; it means refusing to let hatred define the world we leave behind.
עִבְרִית 
English