By IndraStra Global Editorial Team
The Middle East, a region perennially scarred by conflict, has once again been thrust into turmoil by Israel’s recent military strikes on Iran. These attacks, aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear program and targeting senior officials, have disrupted a delicate trajectory of progress in Iran while deepening divisions within Israel itself. The Iranian people, who had begun to see tentative signs of reform, now face the specter of war, their aspirations for liberty and prosperity overshadowed by the trajectories of ballistic missiles. In Israel, a public weary of endless conflict grows increasingly skeptical of peace, while voices of dissent challenge the government’s aggressive policies. This escalating confrontation, framed by some as a battle between freedom and tyranny, reveals a more nuanced reality: a cycle of violence that undermines the agency of ordinary citizens and risks further destabilizing an already volatile region.
In Iran, the past few years had marked a slow but discernible shift toward reform, driven by the resilience of its people. The death of hardliner president Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash prompted a rare moment of reflection among Iran’s ruling elite, who had grown increasingly unpopular due to manipulated elections and brutal protest suppression. The election of Masoud Pezeshkian, who candidly admitted, “We make promises, and we fail to fulfil them,” signaled an attempt to mend the frayed social contract. His acknowledgment of the Islamic Republic’s degraded legitimacy was a significant departure from the regime’s usual rhetoric. Pezeshkian’s presidency, though still in its infancy, had made modest strides in addressing public grievances, particularly around women’s rights. The Women, Life, Freedom movement of 2022 (also known as the Mahsa Amini protests), a powerful uprising led by Iranian women, forced the government to confront its own injustices. When parliament passed a draconian mandatory veiling law, Pezeshkian called it an “unjust law,” a bold statement that positioned women’s rights at the forefront of Iran’s struggle for political renewal.
Economically, Iran had shown signs of recovery despite U.S. sanctions, thanks to the ingenuity of its managerial class and the resilience of its workforce. However, challenges like resurgent inflation and protests over fuel subsidy reforms highlighted the need for better economic management. The appointment of Seyed Ali Madanizadeh, a Stanford- and Chicago-trained economist, as economy minister, reflected a commitment to reform through public dialogue, as he noted that economic changes “are not something that can happen without bringing people on board and opening up a dialogue with the public.” Diplomatically, Iran had also made significant strides, rebuilding ties with neighbors like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s assertion that “Our neighbours are our priority” encapsulated this shift. Iran’s moderation of support for proxies like the Houthis, coupled with a reevaluation of its “forward defence” strategy after setbacks in Syria and with Hamas and Hezbollah, suggested a growing awareness that its regional policies had fueled anti-Iranian sentiment.
Most critically, Iran was engaged in serious nuclear negotiations with the United States, a process that had progressed rapidly through five rounds in two months, with a sixth scheduled for Oman. These talks, which even Israeli officials acknowledged were “likely” to yield a deal, offered hope for de-escalation and sanctions relief, a prospect that resonated with a populace tired of isolation. Despite Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s claim that negotiations with the U.S. were “unwise,” senior officials like Pezeshkian and Araghchi pushed forward, driven by public pressure for change. Yet, Israel’s strikes, which canceled the Oman talks, have shattered these efforts. The civilian death toll in Iran is rising, and the attacks, far from being welcomed as a catalyst for regime change, have left ordinary Iranians terrified, their agency once again curtailed by foreign intervention. As Iranian civil society figures, including Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi, declared, the “only credible path to safeguard [Iran] and its people is the resignation of the current leadership,” but the war has only strengthened the regime’s grip, rallying citizens around the flag in the face of external aggression.
In Israel, the public mood is one of despair and division, compounded by the ongoing war in Gaza and now the conflict with Iran. A Pew Research Center survey from February to March 2025 reveals that only 21% of Israelis believe peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state is possible, down from 35% in 2023. Among Jewish Israelis, this figure is a mere 16%, though Arab Israelis are more optimistic at 40%. The lack of trust between Israelis and Palestinians, cited by 75% as a major obstacle, is exacerbated by issues like the status of Jerusalem (70%) and West Bank settlements (52%). While 56% of Israelis believe their people are committed to peace, only 47% say the same of their government, and just 20% see Hamas as committed to peace. The U.S. remains a key ally, with 81% of Israelis viewing it as helpful to peace efforts, though half believe President Donald Trump favors Israel too much.
Within Israel, dissent is growing. Yair Golan, a former IDF deputy commander, warned that Israel risks becoming a “pariah state” if it continues its current path, stating, “A sane state does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set itself the goal of depopulating the population.” Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was even more scathing, asserting that the government’s policy is “not a ‘hobby’” but a deliberate strategy “whose ultimate goal is to hold on to power.” Channel 12 polling shows 61% of Israelis favor ending the Gaza war to secure the release of hostages, with only 25% supporting further escalation. Protests, such as the one led by Standing Together in Sderot, where 500 demonstrators demanded to “Stop the horrors in Gaza,” reflect a growing belief, articulated by activist Uri Weltmann, that continuing the war “is not only harmful to the Palestinian civilian population, but also risks the lives of hostages, risks the lives of soldiers, risks the lives of all of us.” Yet, hardline voices, like protester Gideon Hashavit’s claim that Gazans “chose a terrorist organisation,” reflects the deep divisions within Israeli society.
The Israeli strikes on Iran, justified by some as a necessary defense against a regime that calls Israel a “cancerous tumor” and counts down to its destruction, have sparked a polarized debate. Proponents argue that Iran’s oppressive policies—systematic abuse of women, murder of homosexuals, and torture of dissidents—make it a global threat, with its nuclear ambitions posing an existential danger to Israel and beyond. The strikes, leveraging Israel’s technological superiority, including fifth-generation aircraft and a robust air-defense network, have degraded Iran’s nuclear facilities and exposed its vulnerabilities, as noted by Andreas Krieg, who highlights the “massive technological gap” between the two states. However, Krieg warns that the neocon fantasy of regime change through military force is “delusional” and destructive, noting that Iran’s nuclear program “can be degraded, but it cannot be destroyed from the air.” The strikes, which caught Iran off-guard due to its naive reliance on deterrence by punishment, have also disrupted energy infrastructure, including the South Pars gas field, raising concerns about global energy supplies.
The U.S. response has been cautious but ambiguous. The Trump administration, informed of the strikes on Thursday, signaled it would not join the war unless Iran targets Americans, a message intended to deter Iranian retaliation against U.S. interests. Trump’s public statements, however, are inconsistent, oscillating between claiming credit for the strikes and urging Iran to negotiate, warning, “They should have done that before. They had 60 days and on the 61st day I said, ‘We don’t have a deal.’” Netanyahu, who speaks to Trump nearly daily, has pushed for U.S. involvement, suggesting that killing Khamenei could “end the war.” Trump’s rejection of this idea, citing the absence of American casualties, reflects a risk-averse stance, though the deployment of the Nimitz carrier group and refueling planes suggests preparation for escalation. An Arab diplomat noted that Iran is “very careful so far not to do anything that can push the U.S. to get involved,” indicating a strategic restraint that may prevent a wider conflict.
Internationally, reactions are mixed. The UK, France, and Canada condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as “morally unjustifiable,” and the EU is reviewing its association agreement with Israel. Yet, European powers, particularly Germany, have been criticized for inconsistent stances, with Krieg calling it “despicable” that they affirm Israel’s “right to defend itself” in an unprovoked attack on Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Iran is “the greatest threat to regional security” reflects a broader Western ambivalence, with some hoping Israel’s strikes will weaken Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Regional actors like Oman and Qatar, key mediators in U.S.-Iran talks, face pressure to broker a ceasefire, while China and Russia, wary of energy disruptions, position themselves as defenders of international law, a stance Krieg deems cynical given Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
For both Iranians and Israelis, the human toll is profound. In Iran, civilian casualties and infrastructure damage threaten economic stability, while in Israel, the fear of Iranian retaliation, though less precise, looms large. Israeli society, less resilient to bombardment, faces a psychological toll not seen since the Gulf War. The conflict also distracts from Gaza and the West Bank, where Israeli operations continue amid global condemnation, further complicating peace prospects. The Iranian people, with a history of foreign interventions—from the 1911 Russian invasion to the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal—see their reform efforts stymied. In Israel, the pursuit of “total victory,” as Netanyahu claims, clashes with a public yearning for peace, as former hostage negotiator Gershon Baskin notes, the “despair, trauma, and a lack of a sense of ability to change anything.” The question posed by the son of Mathias Döpfner, a German journalist and CEO of Axel Springer —“In the near future, will Israel become more like us, living in peace, or will we become more like Israel?”— captures the stakes. The path forward depends on whether leaders can prioritize dialogue over destruction, and whether the international community can support the aspirations of those caught in this relentless cycle of violence.
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and WhatsApp Channel
