Dr. Bahar Akın*

From Shadow Conflict to Open Confrontation: The U.S.–Israel Strategic Axis and Iran

The Middle East is once again approaching a critical strategic turning point. What began as targeted strikes is rapidly evolving into a broader confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran that could reshape regional power balances and the architecture of deterrence.

Recent developments show that the confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran is entering a new strategic phase.Large-scale strikes carried out by the U.S. and Israel against Iranian military infrastructure, combined with critical losses within Iran’s leadership, suggest that the conflict has moved beyond tactical exchanges and entered a strategic phase that directly affects regime stability and regional power balances. Iran’s missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and U.S. assets across the region demonstrate Tehran’s effort to restore deterrence not only through direct retaliation but also by activating its network of regional proxies and expanding pressure across multiple theatres. Escalating clashes between Hezbollah and Israel along the Israel northern frontier, the closure of airspace across several Gulf states, and sharp volatility in global energy markets further show that the crisis has already surpassed the limits of a bilateral confrontation. Washington’s acknowledgment that the military campaign may last for weeks, together with the evacuation of diplomatic personnel from parts of the region, signals that the confrontation risks evolving from a limited military operation into a prolonged strategic contest. The emerging picture points to a new phase in Middle Eastern security dynamics in which deterrence structures are being recalibrated and regional conflicts are becoming increasingly intertwined with broader patterns of great-power competition.

Deterrence and the Changing Logic of Escalation

At the core of the crisis lies a transformation in the logic of deterrence in the Middle East. For decades, the confrontation between Israel and Iran largely unfolded through covert operations, cyberattacks, and proxy conflicts. Direct military confrontation remained limited as both sides avoided a large-scale war that could destabilize the region. The current escalation signals a shift from this pattern. The willingness of the U.S. and Israel to target Iranian strategic assets, combined with Iran’s retaliatory strikes and proxy mobilization, shows that deterrence boundaries are being tested in new ways. Rather than preventing escalation, deterrence increasingly operates as a mechanism of strategic signaling.

Iran’s Strategy: Asymmetric Deterrence

Iran’s response reflects a long-standing doctrine of asymmetric deterrence. Rather than relying solely on conventional capabilities, Iran has built a network of regional partners and non-state actors to extend its strategic reach and complicate the calculations of its adversaries. Groups such as Hezbollah provide Iran with strategic depth and enable pressure across multiple theatres.

Iran’s missile and drone strikes, combined with activity along Israel’s northern frontier, suggest an effort to widen the geographic scope of confrontation.Rather than seeking decisive battlefield victories, Iran aims to shape the risk calculations of its adversaries by demonstrating that sustained pressure would generate wider regional instability.

Türkiye’s Strategic Position

The confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran also places Türkiye in a complex strategic position. As a NATO member and a regional power with extensive political and security ties across the Middle East, Türkiye faces a delicate balancing act. Ankara has traditionally sought to avoid direct involvement in regional confrontations while maintaining its role as a diplomatic and security actor.

A prolonged confrontation between Iran and the U.S.–Israel alignment could destabilize the broader environment surrounding Türkiye’s southern borders. Escalation in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon could generate renewed security pressures, including the resurgence of armed non-state actors and humanitarian instability.

At the same time, the crisis intersects with Türkiye’s pursuit of strategic autonomy. While formally embedded within NATO, Ankara has increasingly pursued a multidimensional foreign policy that balances relations with Western allies and regional actors. In this context, Türkiye may also emerge as a diplomatic interlocutor, as it maintains communication channels with multiple actors across the region.

Expanding European Dimensions of the Crisis

The confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran is also producing repercussions across Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. has Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus gained renewed strategic importance due to the presence of British sovereign base areas, including RAF Akrotiri (Royal Air Force), which functions as a key operational hub for Middle Eastern missions.

The United Kingdom and France, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, are closely monitoring the escalation while maintaining military capabilities in the Eastern Mediterranean. These deployments reflect broader European concerns over maritime security, regional instability, and energy infrastructure.

Following the recent escalation in the Middle East and the missile incident involving Türkiye, the Bulgarian government stated that it would review its national security strategies. As a country located on NATO’s southeastern flank, Bulgaria is closely monitoring the developments due to their potential implications for regional security and energy networks.

These developments illustrate that the confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran is no longer confined to a single regional arena but increasingly intersects with European strategic interests and security calculations.

International Law and Institutional Responsibility

The escalation also raises urgent questions under international law, particularly regarding the interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the limits of self-defense. As competing claims of self-defense emerge, institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the International Atomic Energy Agency should play a more active role in addressing the legal and security implications of the crisis. Their engagement is essential not only to clarify the legitimacy of the use of force but also to help prevent further escalation and preserve international security.

Strategic Stability and the Risk of Escalation

The current escalation raises fundamental questions about the future of strategic stability in the Middle East. Stability depends not only on military power but also on mutually recognized limits that prevent crises from spiraling out of control. As these limits weaken, deterrence can paradoxically fuel escalation rather than contain it. The confrontation between the U.S.–Israel alignment and Iran reflects this fragile moment. Military strikes, proxy mobilization, and shows of force intended to restore deterrence simultaneously increase the risk of miscalculation. If the current trajectory continues, the crisis may expand beyond a limited confrontation and evolve into a prolonged phase of regional instability reshaping the Middle Eastern security order.

• Bahar Akın is a researcher specializing in international security, nuclear non-proliferation, and international regimes. She received her PhD in Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation from the University of Vienna. Her research focuses on multilateral institutions, sanctions mechanisms, and strategic developments in the Middle East.