Proxy to Powder Keg: The Iran-Israel Conflict Goes Direct

June 23rd, 2025

Patrick Li

In a cold standoff long defined by proxy skirmishes and shadow warfare for the past 4 decades, as of the day of writing, the Iran–Israel conflict has taken on a far more volatile—and far more direct—form. On June 21st, in response to increasingly higher ramps in Israeli aggression, Iran launched a coordinated barrage of missiles and drones into Israeli territory including Tel Aviv, prompting an aggressive response from the IDF, a sharp escalation in rhetoric from both sides, and, for the first time in over a decade, direct U.S. airstrikes via B-2 Bombers on Iranian soil. What began as yet another tit-for-tat confrontation has quickly morphed into something far more dangerous: a potential three-front conflict drawing in Israel, Iran, and the United States. With rising tensions, record high breaks in diplomacy, and fiery rhetoric, it's worth understanding the situation.

To Israeli leadership, the stakes are clear. After months of warning about Iranian nuclear advances and regional meddling, Prime Minister Netanyahu is now delivering on his promise of "strategic deterrence." Israeli jets have struck deep into Iran, targeting weapons depots and high-ranking IRGC officials. In Jerusalem, the campaign has received overwhelming support—a Bloomberg poll this week found that 80% of Israelis back the government’s military handling of the conflict, with 83% of Jewish citizens specifically supporting further escalation. For Netanyahu, whose grip on power had been loosening under domestic scrutiny, the war in Gaza—and now Iran—has become something of a political lifeline.

In Washington, however, the mood is much less unified, to say the least. Following his ordering of precision strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, President Trump defended the move as a “calculated show of strength”—but polling suggests Americans aren’t convinced. A YouGov/Economist survey conducted last week found that 60% of Americans oppose direct involvement in the Iran–Israel conflict, with only 16% in support. Even among Republicans, the numbers are split: while 65% of Trump voters back arming Israel offensively, only 23% support active U.S. strikes on Iranian soil. This divide—in the context of the already contentious partisanship in America—is especially shocking. Instead of partisanship, this split is more than ideological—it’s generational, regional, and increasingly electoral.

But perhaps the most surprising developments this week haven’t come from foreign capitals—but from inside Iran itself. While the Khamenei regime has, predictably, responded with bombast and promises of vengeance against both America and Israel, anti-government protests—despite the American escalation—have also broken out in cities like Tehran and Tabriz, where young Iranians—many of them barely teenagers during the last wave of unrest—have taken to the streets chanting against both the IRGC and Supreme Leader Khamenei. In videos that have since gone viral, crowds cheer as images of bombed-out IRGC headquarters circulate. One comment summed it up bluntly: “They bombed the regime, not the people. For once.”

Still, the regime is holding its line. On June 20th, Iran canceled all planned diplomatic talks in Geneva and Muscat, severing one of the last remaining backchannels for nuclear de-escalation. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called U.S. strikes “a reckless act of war” and warned that further action would result in “everlasting consequences.” Meanwhile, IRGC units have been repositioned throughout the Gulf, and Hezbollah activity along Israel’s northern border has ticked up in tandem.

So where does that leave us?

In a contested region that has been long shaped by proxy wars and political theatrics, this time is something different. Iran is cornered, but defiant, in a sense. Israel is unified, but also deeply aware that escalation comes with cost at the same time. And the U.S.—once a bystander as a hesitant power —is now an active participant in this conflict with no clear off-ramp. Diplomacy is on ice. The rhetoric is getting hotter. And with all sides now leaning on military muscle rather than backchannel talks, the road forward feels increasingly narrow. One side is testing limits. Another is rewriting them. And the rest of the world is left wondering what the next line in the sand will be—and who’s going to cross it first.