A new policy analysis by Rob Geist Pinfold, Clive Jones, and Anoushiravan Ehteshami, published in Global Policy, examines how the longstanding rivalry between Iran and Israel has driven the Middle East into a dangerous cycle of escalating conflict. The research offers a critical analysis of the two states’ grand strategies and how these have redefined the region’s security landscape in the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks.
The study challenges the conventional view of Israel as a status quo power and Iran as the region’s primary revisionist force. Instead, it argues that these roles have reversed, with Israel now pursuing an aggressive, revisionist strategy while Iran seeks to preserve what remains of its regional influence.
Key findings include:
1) A dangerous cycle of escalation is pushing the Middle East toward all-out war.
The study describes a "new abnormal normal" in the region: repeated cycles of violent escalation that each raise the risk of open war between Iran and Israel. Every new crisis intensifies regional instability and expands the geographical scope of the conflict.
2) Israel has become the Middle East’s main revisionist power.
Traditionally a status quo state, Israel’s recent military actions suggest it now seeks to reshape the regional order in its favor. Prime Minister Netanyahu is pursuing what the study calls a "1967 moment"—a decisive victory that would cement Israel’s dominance in the region.
3) Iran is now a status quo power—on the defensive.
Despite its historical role as a challenger to the regional balance of power, Iran is currently seeking de-escalation. The study argues that Iran’s grand strategy of “forward defense” has backfired, exposing the country to direct confrontation with Israel and weakening its regional alliances.
4) Both Iran and Israel rely on flawed strategies that fuel perpetual conflict.
While their strategies differ—Israel favors bold military escalation, and Iran practices “strategic patience”—both are deeply rooted in force-centric approaches. Neither side has demonstrated an interest in conflict resolution, and both perpetuate policies that have led to repeated crises.