The Israel-Iran Conflict in 2025
A Multidimensional Analysis Through Núñez’s Integrated Frameworks
Drawing on my works—Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (2017), Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), and Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023)—I analyze the current Israel-Iran conflict as of June 15, 2025, through a multidimensional lens. My Integrated Multiverses framework, employing quantum entanglement as a metaphor, views sovereignty as an interconnected system across agents, roles, contexts, realms, and dimensions, shaped by time and space.
This approach moves beyond unidimensional paradigms to address the complex interplay of domestic, regional, and international contexts, international law, geopolitics, history, religion, and leaders’ prestige. Below, I assess the situation, integrating my theoretical contributions to highlight why traditional approaches fail and how my frameworks offer insights into this escalating crisis.
Overview of the Current Situation (June 2025)
The Israel-Iran conflict has reached a critical juncture in 2025, marked by direct military engagements and heightened regional tensions. On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major attack on Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories, and military commanders, aiming to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons . Iran retaliated with approximately 100 drones and hundreds of ballistic missiles targeting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, though Israel intercepted many . This follows earlier direct strikes in April, July, and October 2024, breaking the taboo of overt state-to-state attacks. The UN Secretary-General condemned the escalation, urging diplomacy. Iran’s intelligence reportedly secured sensitive Israeli nuclear documents, signaling a counter-intelligence blow. These events, rooted in decades of hostility, underscore a volatile trajectory with risks of broader war.
Domestic Contexts
Israel: Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership is bolstered by his aggressive stance, enhancing his prestige among hardline supporters. My 2020 work notes Israel’s domestic cohesion in perceiving Iran as a grave threat, with few “Iran-doves.” However, prolonged conflict strains resources, with airport closures and economic pressures from defending multiple fronts (Gaza, Lebanon, Syria) (). My 2017 distributive justice lens highlights how Israel’s focus on military dominance risks neglecting domestic equity, as public fatigue grows with 55,000 deaths in regional conflicts since 2023 (ACLED, 2025). The axiological realm (values) in my 2023 framework reveals a tension: security-driven unity versus calls for peace from moderates.
Iran: Iran faces domestic fragility, with low voter turnout (40% in 2024) signaling apathy and dissent after the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests (). President Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist elected in July 2024, seeks “unity and cohesion” but lacks control over foreign policy, dominated by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the IRGC. My 2023 multidimensional approach notes competing agents—reformists versus hardliners—and contexts (domestic unrest versus regime stability). Pezeshkian’s limited reforms aim to shore up support against external pressure, but chants like “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, we sacrifice for Iran” reflect public frustration with foreign entanglements. My 2017 justice framework suggests this disconnect fuels instability, as resources flow to proxies rather than citizens.
Regional Contexts
Regionally, the conflict reshapes West Asia. Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) has weakened, with losses like Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah in 2024 and Syria’s collapse under Assad, a key ally. My 2020 case studies show Iran’s proxy strategy as a pragmatic balance of ideology and power projection, but Israel’s strikes on IRGC commanders (e.g., Syed Razi Mousavi, 2023) disrupt this network . Israel’s alliances, like the Abraham Accords, align Gulf states against Iran, isolating it further. My 2023 pluralism of pluralisms highlights competing roles: Iran as a hegemon to its proxies, Israel as a dominant power to Arab allies. Nonlinear dynamics—e.g., Hezbollah’s resilience despite losses—complicate linear containment efforts. Saudi Arabia, post-2023 China-mediated détente with Iran, urges de-escalation to protect oil exports, showing regional interdependence.
International Contexts
Internationally, the conflict entangles global powers. The U.S. supports Israel’s defense (e.g., intercepting Iran’s April 2024 attack) but seeks to avoid entanglement, with Trump’s 2025 return signaling potential “maximum pressure” sanctions or negotiations . My 2020 analysis of geopolitical rivalries notes U.S.-Iran tensions since the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal. China, mediating Saudi-Iran ties, pushes de-escalation to stabilize trade (). The UN Security Council is paralyzed, with no effective response to violations of sovereignty. My 2023 time-space lens sees this as a clash of eternalist (ideological) versus non-eternal (diplomatic) timelines, with virtual spaces (e.g., Iran’s cyber operations) adding complexity.
International Law
International law violations escalate. Israel’s strikes on Iranian soil, including nuclear sites, might breach sovereignty and risk constituting aggression unless there were a case for self-defense. Iran’s missile attacks violate the UN Charter. My 2017 distributive justice framework critiques these actions as prioritizing power over fairness, undermining global norms. Importantly, Iran’s support for non-state actors like Hezbollah triggers debates on state responsibility under jus ad bellum and might support Israel’s case for self-defense if able to prove Iran’s direct or indirect role in attacks. My 2023 multidimensional approach notes the normative realm’s failure to address axiological (ideological) drivers, rendering legal mechanisms ineffective.
Geopolitics
Geopolitically, the conflict reflects a struggle for regional hegemony. Israel’s “reverse periphery doctrine” aligns with Arab states against Iran, leveraging its military edge. Iran, despite losses, maintains influence via proxies and nuclear ambitions, with 2025 IAEA non-compliance resolutions risking UN sanctions. My 2020 work highlights Iran’s pragmatic balancing of ideology and survival, viewing U.S. and Israeli actions as existential threats. My 2023 quantum entanglement analogy sees these moves as interconnected: Israel’s strikes ripple to Iran’s nuclear policy, affecting Gulf stability and global markets.
Historical Context
Historically, Israel-Iran relations shifted with the 1979 Islamic Revolution, ending the Shah’s covert ties with Israel Khomeini’s anti-Zionist ideology framed Israel as a “cancerous state,” aligning Iran with Palestinian causes. My 2020 case studies note this ideological pivot, rooted in anti-Western sentiment, contrasts with earlier pragmatic cooperation. My 2023 framework sees this as an eternalist narrative (Islamic revolution versus Zionism), clashing with non-eternal diplomatic possibilities, perpetuating hostility.
Religion
Religion shapes the conflict’s axiological realm. Iran’s Shiite theocracy casts Israel as a non-Muslim “other,” rallying support via anti-Zionism. Khomeini’s 1979 narrative framed Jews and Israel as threats, though not always theologically antisemitic. Israel’s Jewish identity fuels its existential framing of Iran’s threats, especially nuclear. My 2023 pluralism of pluralisms sees these metaphysical modes entangling with factual (military) and normative (legal) realms, making resolution elusive.
Leaders’ Prestige
Netanyahu’s prestige hinges on projecting dominance, with 2024-2025 strikes showcasing Israel’s reach. My 2020 analysis notes his risk-taking as a domestic consolidator. Khamenei’s authority rests on resisting Western pressure, but losses (e.g., Nasrallah) and domestic dissent weaken his image. Pezeshkian’s reformist tone lacks traction against hardliners. My 2017 justice lens critiques this as self-referred prestige-seeking, sidelining equitable solutions.
Other Relevant Issues
- Nuclear Dynamics: Iran’s nuclear program, nearing weapons-grade capability, escalates tensions, with Israel’s strikes aiming to deter. My 2023 nonlinear lens sees this as chaotic, risking unpredictable escalation.
- Proxy Warfare: Iran’s weakened proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas) still retain grassroots support, complicating Israel’s containment. My 2020 empirical grounding notes their resilience.
- Economic Impact: Conflict disrupts global markets, with potential $3 trillion trade losses (World Bank, 2025) Feast of the World). My 2017 justice framework sees this as unjust to regional populations.
- Public Sentiment: Iranian dissent against foreign spending and Israel’s unified threat perception shape policy, per my 2023 axiological realm.
Why Traditional Approaches Fail
My 2023 work argues that unidimensional approaches—legal rulings, sanctions, or military deterrence—fail to address nonlinear dynamics (e.g., proxy chaos) and pluralisms (e.g., religious narratives). The UN’s paralysis and legal violations reflect this. My 2017 distributive justice model critiques the zero-sum sovereignty mindset, while my 2020 empirical analysis shows historical and cultural entanglements driving escalation.
Insights from My Frameworks
- 2017 (Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty): A shared approach could de-escalate by prioritizing mutual security, but prestige-driven leadership resists.
- 2020 (Empirical Fluidity): Case studies like Israel-Palestine show sovereignty’s fluidity; Iran-Israel requires flexible, non-exclusive solutions.
- 2023 (Multidimensionality): Engaging diverse agents (e.g., publics, moderates) across contexts and realms could break nonlinear cycles, but requires mutual restraint.
Conclusion
The Israel-Iran conflict in 2025 is a multidimensional crisis, entangled across domestic, regional, and international contexts, defying traditional solutions. My Integrated Multiverses suggest that peace requires addressing pluralisms—acknowledging religious, historical, and prestige-driven motives alongside legal and geopolitical realities. Without multidimensional cooperation, escalation risks catastrophic outcomes, as my frameworks warn.
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Sunday 15th June 2025
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment