Middle East Shifts: Israel Cripples Iran’s Proxies, but Nuclear Threat Remains To Be Dealt With
With Iran’s influence diminished and its nuclear program advancing, Israel faces a critical decision on whether to strike
The war that engulfed the Middle East since October 2023 has emphasized the region’s division into two blocs: Iran and its proxies—Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Bashar Assad regime in Syria—against Israel and pro-Western Arab countries.
For the first time, the conflict directly pitted archrivals Israel and Iran against each other.
Now, more than ever, Iran and its nuclear program face the possibility of an attack by Israel, potentially with US support, as both consider taking advantage of Iran’s perceived weakness.
Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years suggest that Iran has made progress toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, IAEA head Rafael Grossi stated that reviving a previous agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions was pointless, as the Islamic Republic was already on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability. Intermittent negotiations to reach a new deal since the 2015 agreement have failed.
On Sunday, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan expressed concern in an interview with CNN that Iran’s weakened position might prompt it to accelerate efforts to develop nuclear capabilities. Israel regards such capabilities as a strategic and existential threat.
“By saying this, the current administration, which has previously been reluctant to attack Iran, is signaling concern and suggesting that the US might have to act,” Professor Jonathan Rynhold, head of the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, told The Media Line. “There is more willingness now in the US to act preemptively.”
Regional developments have brought Israel to a critical juncture where it may decide to strike Iran. The impending transition in the White House, with US President Donald Trump set to replace President Joe Biden, is expected to heavily influence Israel’s decision-making process.
Hamas’ shocking offensive against southern Israel on October 7 of last year quickly escalated into a broader conflict. Hezbollah launched rockets into northern Israel, the Houthis attacked maritime vessels in the Red Sea, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria joined the multifront assault against Israel.
Israel launched a fierce counteroffensive, describing the attacks as part of Iran’s long-standing strategy to encircle it with a “ring of fire”—a network of proxies cultivated to deter Israel. According to Israeli officials, this strategy aimed to prevent Israel from focusing on its primary goal: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear power.
Israel’s military campaign against Hamas and Hezbollah has achieved significant results. Despite the heavy toll on Gaza and its population, Hamas has been largely dismantled as a military organization and now poses a much smaller threat. Hezbollah’s senior leadership, including its prominent leader Hassan Nasrallah, has been eliminated, and much of its rocket arsenal and fighting capacity, including thousands of fighters, has been destroyed. A fragile ceasefire in Lebanon remains in place.
In Syria, the fall of the Assad regime emerged as an unintended yet strategically significant outcome of the regional shifts. Syria had served as a key corridor for Iran to supply weapons and expertise to Hezbollah, a route now largely inaccessible. Capitalizing on Syria’s internal turmoil, Israel launched an aggressive air campaign that reportedly dismantled much of the country’s military capabilities, including its air defense systems.
Iraqi militias have reportedly abandoned their armed campaign against Israel. However, the Houthis continue to target Israel with ballistic missiles. Despite several Israeli strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, the missile attacks persist.
Iran directly attacked Israel twice during the war, in April and September, launching hundreds of missiles and drones. Most were intercepted by Israel and an international coalition led by the US. In response to both attacks, Israel struck deep within Iran, marking the first time the two nations exchanged direct blows after years of shadow warfare.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Iran’s ability to deter or strike Israel through its proxies has been significantly weakened. Additionally, Israel’s retaliation has reportedly dealt a major blow to Iran’s missile production capabilities and air defense systems, which unconfirmed reports suggest have been nearly neutralized. Without the protection of its proxies, Iran is now especially vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
The Biden administration has maintained active support for Israel, even as its relationship with Jerusalem remains strained.
The US underestimated what Israel would achieve militarily throughout the war—in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria—on every level
“The US underestimated what Israel would achieve militarily throughout the war—in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria—on every level,” said Rynhold. “Many US assumptions proved incorrect, and now the prospect of a military option against Iran seems less concerning.”
Rynhold explained that the American frame of reference remains shaped by its experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Those were efforts to change political realities,” he said. “Israel’s efforts, by contrast, have focused solely on military targets.”
Recent remarks by the American national security adviser, along with statements from Trump suggesting he plans to adopt a hard-line stance on Iran, indicate a growing US acknowledgment that military action may be necessary—and that the timing could be right.
“There is no doubt that Israel has significantly diminished Iran’s ability to influence the region,” Dr. Menahem Merhavy, a research fellow and expert on Iran at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Media Line. “Iran’s chances of rehabilitating its main proxy, Hezbollah, are minuscule. The weakening of its regional grip has nearly paralyzed its operational capabilities.”
Iran’s ability to attack Israel is now even more limited than it was before Israel’s strikes on its territory, and it has no new means of escalating its attacks
“Iran’s ability to attack Israel is now even more limited than it was before Israel’s strikes on its territory, and it has no new means of escalating its attacks,” Merhavy added. “Iran can cause damage and panic in Israel, but not much more.”
Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which the Islamic Republic claims are not for military purposes, remain unfulfilled but still pose a potential threat to Israel.
For decades, Israeli leaders, led by the country’s longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have pledged to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. With Iran now weaker than ever, calls for Netanyahu to act on that commitment have grown louder.
To a certain extent, Israel was indeed deterred for many years by Iran and its web of proxies
“To a certain extent, Israel was indeed deterred for many years by Iran and its web of proxies,” said Merhavy. However, the October 7 attack by Hamas, followed by Hezbollah’s involvement from the north, propelled Israel into its longest war to date.
“Iran underestimated Israel’s determination to fight back, as well as Hezbollah’s limitations and Israel’s counteroffensive capabilities,” Merhavy added. “Iran is now weaker than ever and is grappling with significant domestic issues. The time for a surgical strike against Iran might be right.”
The Islamic Republic, home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves, is facing a severe energy crisis. Its population frequently experiences power outages, schools have been forced to close, and industries are struggling to survive. Despite its downgraded regional status, Iran has continued advancing its nuclear program.
“While some may believe this could push Iran toward developing a nuclear weapon, I think this scenario is unlikely, as it would provoke a nearly suicidal response,” said Merhavy. “Iran will likely focus inward and cautiously de-escalate, avoiding outright confrontation.”
With less than a month until his inauguration, Trump may initially pursue negotiations for a new deal with Iran, leveraging its weakened position. As a self-proclaimed master negotiator, the incoming president may see this as an opportunity to prove his skills.
“An incoming administration may aim to demonstrate it can succeed where the previous one failed,” said Rynhold. “Iran’s vulnerability might push it to accept terms it previously rejected.”
Meanwhile, Israel waits.
“Israel will act only as a last resort and is unlikely to strike alone unless there is absolutely no alternative to delaying Iran’s nuclear program,” said Rynhold. “The US is unlikely to lead such an attack, but given that Iran’s response would extend beyond Israel, supporting Israel would require a serious American commitment. The US would provide active support, backup, and logistical aid.”
As regional actors reassess their positions during these turbulent times, all eyes are on the impending shift in Washington. One thing remains certain: Iran and Israel will continue to view each other as adversaries.
“Iran will not abandon its hostility toward Israel; it will simply manage it differently,” Merhavy concluded.
