Israel-Iran Conflict Explained: History, Netanyahu Warnings and US Ties
Bud Ayer
London, UK - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated Sunday, September 6, 2026, that "the end of the Iranian regime is near," adding that its fall would "change the fate of the Middle East and the Jewish people." Netanyahu went on to say: "Together with the United States, we accomplished tremendous achievements in removing the existential threat from above us. We have removed atomic bombs and ballistic missiles from above us and have hit the Iranian axis with great force. We are determined to defend ourselves. We are determined to strike our enemies." Netanyahu added, "Iran and Israel's other adversaries could make a mistake and suffer a blow they don't even imagine."
The Israel-Iran conflict is no longer only a shadow war fought through covert operations, proxy groups, cyberattacks, and statements from podiums. It has become more open, more regional, and harder to contain.
For years, Israel and Iran avoided direct, sustained military confrontation. Each side struck indirectly or deniably. Israel targeted Iranian-linked weapons transfers in Syria. Iran armed and trained groups hostile to Israel, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militant factions. Both sides signaled strength while trying to avoid a full regional war.
That balance has become less stable. The war in Gaza after the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, and Iran’s direct missile and drone attack on Israel in April 2024 all pushed the rivalry into a more dangerous phase. The result is a conflict that sits at the center of Middle East security, US foreign policy, energy markets, and the future of diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program.
How Israel and Iran went from partners to enemies
Israel and Iran were not always enemies. Before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the two countries had quiet but meaningful ties. Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, saw Israel as a useful partner against Arab nationalist rivals. Israel valued Iran as a non-Arab regional power and an energy supplier.
The revolution changed that relationship almost overnight. Iran’s new leadership, built around the Islamic Republic and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, made opposition to Israel a core part of its identity. Tehran rejected Israel’s legitimacy, embraced the Palestinian cause, and cast itself as a leader of resistance against both Israel and the United States.
Several key events hardened the conflict:
Period | Key development | Why it mattered |
1979 | Iran’s Islamic Revolution | Iran cut ties with Israel and adopted anti-Israel ideology as state policy. |
1980s | Rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon | Iran helped build a powerful armed partner on Israel’s northern border. |
1990s | Attacks linked by investigators to Iran-backed networks | Israel and Jewish communities abroad viewed Iran as a global security threat. |
2000s | Iran’s nuclear program became a central issue | Israel argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unacceptable danger. |
2011 onward | Syrian civil war | Iran expanded its military footprint near Israel through Syria and allied militias. |
2015 | Iran nuclear deal was signed | The agreement split Israel and the Obama administration over whether diplomacy could contain Iran. |
2018 | The United States withdrew from the nuclear deal | Pressure on Iran rose, but Iran later expanded nuclear activity beyond deal limits. |
2023 and after | Gaza war widened regional tensions | Iran-backed groups increased pressure on Israel and US forces across the region. |
April 2024 | Iran launched drones and missiles at Israel | The long shadow war became a direct state-to-state exchange. |
The pattern is clear. Israel sees Iran not only as a hostile country, but as the organizer of a network that surrounds it. Iran sees Israel as a close US ally, a military threat, and a political enemy whose existence challenges Tehran’s revolutionary claims.
That does not mean every clash leads to all-out war. Both governments have often used calibrated force. They test boundaries, retaliate, and send warnings. Still, the space for miscalculation has narrowed.
Netanyahu’s warnings about the Iranian regime carry several messages
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned for decades that Iran’s nuclear program, missile development, and support for armed groups pose an existential threat to Israel. His recent warnings fit that long-running message, but they now land in a more volatile setting.
Netanyahu’s core argument has stayed consistent: Iran’s leadership should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and Israel will act if it believes other tools fail. He has also framed the Iranian regime as dangerous not only to Israel, but to Iranians themselves and to the wider region.
These warnings serve several purposes.
They signal deterrence. Netanyahu wants Tehran to believe that Israel is willing to strike Iranian assets, commanders, supply routes, and possibly nuclear-related targets if it sees a severe threat.
They shape US and European debate. Israeli leaders often use public warnings to push allies toward tighter sanctions, military readiness, or a harder line in nuclear talks.
They prepare Israeli public opinion. When leaders speak about existential danger, they build support for riskier military or covert action.
They speak to Iran’s population. Netanyahu has at times separated Iran’s people from its rulers, suggesting that Israel’s fight is with the regime, not ordinary Iranians. That message aims to weaken Tehran’s claim that Israel is hostile to the Iranian nation itself.
The implication is serious. Netanyahu’s language can deter Iran, but it can also raise pressure for action. If each side believes the other is preparing a major strike, both may move faster, shorten decision times, and take steps the other side reads as escalation.
Does Israel seek Iran’s destruction, and does Iran seek Israel’s destruction?
This question is often asked in broad terms, but the answer needs care. States, leaders, militaries, and ideological movements do not always speak with one voice.
Iran’s position toward Israel
Iran’s Islamic Republic has used extreme anti-Israel rhetoric for decades. Iranian leaders have questioned or rejected Israel’s legitimacy, supported groups that attack Israel, and promoted the idea that Israel will disappear. That rhetoric is not symbolic to Israelis. It is tied to missiles, drones, funding, training, and arms transfers.
Iran also backs or supports several groups that form what it calls the “axis of resistance.” These include Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed factions in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to varying degrees and in different ways. These groups have their own interests, but Iran’s support gives Tehran influence across multiple fronts.
At the same time, Iran’s leaders usually act with concern for regime survival. They may call for Israel’s end, but they also avoid actions that could invite devastating retaliation unless they believe the risk is manageable. This makes Iran both ideological and strategic. That mix is one reason the conflict is so hard to read.
Israel’s position toward Iran
Israel does not officially seek the destruction of Iran as a country. Israeli leaders usually draw a line between the Iranian state, the Iranian people, and the Islamic Republic’s ruling system. Israel’s stated goals focus on stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, limiting Iranian military entrenchment near Israel, and weakening Iran-backed armed groups.
That said, some Israeli rhetoric has openly welcomed the idea of political change inside Iran. Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have appealed to Iranians over the heads of their leaders. They have argued that the regime spends money on foreign militias while ordinary Iranians face economic hardship and political repression.
So the better distinction is this:
Iran toward Israel
Israel toward Iran
Iran’s ruling ideology rejects Israel’s legitimacy, and Tehran supports armed groups that fight Israel.
Israel targets the regime’s military reach and nuclear capabilities, while often saying its conflict is not with the Iranian people.
The danger lies in how each side interprets the other. Iran may view Israeli strikes and regime-change language as proof that Israel seeks to weaken or topple the Islamic Republic. Israel may view Iran’s rhetoric, proxies, and nuclear advances as proof that Tehran seeks Israel’s physical destruction.
Both readings fuel preemptive thinking. That is where escalation becomes more likely.
The US relationship with Israel shapes the conflict, but Washington has its own limits
The United States is Israel’s most important ally. It provides major military aid, missile defense support, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic backing. US support for Israel’s defense against missile and drone attacks has been especially visible, as seen when the United States and regional partners helped intercept Iran’s April 2024 attack.
Yet US and Israeli priorities are not identical.
Israel tends to see Iran through the lens of immediate national survival. It is a small country facing short distances, advanced missiles, and heavily armed groups near its borders. Israeli leaders often argue that waiting too long can create irreversible danger, especially on the nuclear question.
The United States has a wider set of concerns. Washington wants to protect Israel, secure US forces in the region, keep oil routes open, prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain ties with Arab partners, and avoid another large Middle East war. These goals can pull in different directions.
This has created recurring tension.
During the Obama administration, the United States backed the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Israel, led by Netanyahu, strongly opposed it. Netanyahu argued that the deal delayed rather than ended Iran’s nuclear threat and failed to address missiles and regional militias.
The Trump administration withdrew from the deal in 2018 and restored heavy sanctions. Israel welcomed the harder line, but Iran eventually moved away from many of the deal’s limits. The result was more pressure, but not a clear settlement.
Under President Joe Biden, the United States tried to prevent the Gaza war from becoming a region-wide conflict while also supporting Israel’s security. The Biden administration defended Israel against Iranian attacks, but it also pressed for restraint in some moments and raised concerns about civilian harm in Gaza. This showed a wider shift in US politics. Support for Israel remains strong in Washington, but debates over how Israel uses force have grown louder, especially within the Democratic Party and among younger voters.
The US posture toward Iran has also shifted. After the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is less appetite in the United States for another major conflict in the Middle East. That makes Washington more likely to favor deterrence, sanctions, air defense, and diplomacy over a full military campaign.
Where the conflict stands now
The current Israel-Iran conflict is best understood as a layered confrontation rather than one single battlefield.
There is a nuclear layer, where Israel fears Iran could move close enough to weapons capability that future action becomes too risky. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, but its nuclear advances have reduced trust.
There is a proxy layer, where Iran-backed groups pressure Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestinian territories. This gives Iran reach without always requiring direct Iranian attacks.
There is a direct military layer, now more visible after Iran and Israel crossed previous red lines with open attacks and responses.
There is also a political layer. Netanyahu faces domestic pressure in Israel over security failures, hostages, Gaza, and his own leadership. Iran’s rulers face public frustration over the economy, social restrictions, and legitimacy. Leaders on both sides may use external confrontation to project strength, but they also know uncontrolled war could threaten their hold on power.
A full Israel-Iran war would carry huge risks. It could involve missile strikes on cities, attacks on energy infrastructure, disruption in the Persian Gulf, and greater involvement by the United States. It could also place Arab governments in a difficult position. Many Gulf states fear Iran, but they also face public anger over Palestinian suffering and do not want their territory to become a launchpad for war.
That is why restraint and escalation now exist side by side. Israel may keep targeting Iranian networks. Iran may keep using proxies and calibrated direct pressure. The United States may keep trying to support Israel while limiting the scope of conflict.
This unstable balance can hold for a time. It can also break quickly.
The main takeaway
The Israel-Iran conflict is not a simple story of two countries suddenly choosing confrontation. It is the result of decades of ideological hostility, regional power competition, nuclear fear, militia warfare, and failed trust.
Netanyahu’s warnings reflect a real Israeli fear that Iran’s regime seeks the means to threaten Israel’s existence. Iran’s rhetoric and regional actions give that fear weight. At the same time, Iran views Israel, backed by the United States, as a direct threat to its security and political survival.
Neither side can be understood only through its slogans. Iran’s leaders use revolutionary language, but they also calculate risk. Israel speaks of self-defense, but its strikes and warnings can look to Tehran like efforts to weaken the regime itself.
The United States remains the key outside power. It strengthens Israel’s defense and helps deter Iran, but it also tries to prevent a wider war that could pull in US forces and destabilize the region. That balancing act is getting harder.
The clearest way to read the moment is this: the conflict has moved from hidden pressure to open signaling. The next stage will depend on whether leaders in Jerusalem, Tehran, and Washington can keep deterrence from turning into a chain reaction.
