‘The Stars Aligned’: Why Israel Set Out for War Against Iran, and What It Achieved?

For decades, tensions between Israel and Iran simmered beneath the surface, manifesting in proxy confrontations, cyberattacks, assassinations, and fierce diplomatic standoffs. The two nations engaged in a prolonged shadow war, relying on regional proxies and covert operations to undermine each other, but in 2025, this covert conflict erupted into open confrontation. Israel launched a coordinated and unprecedented offensive against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. The world watched in shock. Why now? What factors drove Israel to act so decisively? And most importantly, what did it achieve? The Road to Conflict: From Cold War to Open Conflagration The animosity between Israel and Iran stretches back more than four decades. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has positioned itself as a vocal and active opponent of the Jewish state. Its backing of militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza has repeatedly sparked violence. Iranian leaders have issued incendiary statements questioning Israel’s legitimacy and have invested heavily in missile programmes and cyberwarfare capabilities aimed at undermining Israel’s regional advantage. Israel, meanwhile, has maintained a doctrine of preemption. It regards a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. As such, Tel Aviv has conducted covert and overt operations to impede Tehran’s nuclear progress, ranging from assassinations of key scientists and sabotage of facilities to international lobbying for sanctions and diplomatic isolation. By 2025, however, a confluence of events dramatically shifted the calculus in Jerusalem. As one senior Israeli defence official stated: “The stars aligned, and we acted.” The Catalysts: Why Israel Chose This Moment to Strike Several key developments led Israel to escalate from covert pressure to overt military action: Crossing the Nuclear Threshold: Intelligence indicated Iran was mere weeks away from producing weapons-grade uranium. After years of fruitless diplomacy, Israeli leadership concluded that further delay was unacceptable. Regional Realignment: Years of quiet cooperation with Gulf states under the Abraham Accords matured into a strategic advantage. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, wary of Iran’s ambitions, took a neutral or even quietly supportive stance. Domestic Political Pressure: Both countries faced political unrest. Israeli Prime Minister Ronen Levy battled coalition instability, while protests surged across Iran. In both capitals, military action was seen as a way to rally national unity. Global Distraction: The U.S. was embroiled in domestic divisions and economic uncertainty. Europe, still recovering from energy shocks and war-related instability, showed little appetite for Middle East involvement. Israel sensed the world would not block its path. Cyber Provocations: In the months leading to the war, Israel suffered several sophisticated cyberattacks on its water systems and power grid, traced back to Iranian proxies. These attacks were interpreted as direct provocations. The Offensive: Precision, Speed, and Strategy Israel's response was swift and asymmetric. Rather than a traditional invasion, it launched a multi-pronged operation involving airstrikes, cyber warfare, satellite surveillance, and regional coordination. Targeted airstrikes hit nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, as well as missile stockpiles and logistics centres in Syria and Iraq. Israeli cyber units paralysed Iran’s air defence networks, creating confusion and severely limiting Tehran’s ability to retaliate. Artificial intelligence played a significant role in real-time targeting. Drones executed precision strikes with remarkable accuracy, and special forces reportedly conducted sabotage missions with assistance from anti-regime factions within Iran. Importantly, Israel aimed to limit civilian casualties. Major urban centres and oil infrastructure were deliberately avoided to prevent global economic fallout and minimise humanitarian backlash. Iran’s Response: Measured, Yet Defiant Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes on Israeli military bases in the Negev and Galilee. Hezbollah opened a limited front from Lebanon, while cyberattacks briefly disrupted Israeli hospitals, financial systems, and transportation grids. Still, Tehran’s response was notably restrained. It did not mobilise all its proxies, nor did it move to close the Strait of Hormuz, a potential red line for global powers. Experts suggest Iranian leaders were stunned by the effectiveness of Israel’s strikes. Concerned about domestic stability and economic fragility, Tehran appeared to prioritise containment over escalation. Achievements and Fallout: Tactical Victory, Strategic Question Marks What Israel Gained: Setback to Nuclear Development: Most analysts estimate Iran’s nuclear ambitions were delayed by 18 to 36 months. Key infrastructure was destroyed, and scientific leadership was disrupted. Regional Deterrence Reinforced: Israel sent a clear signal to its adversaries, demonstrating the extent of its intelligence and military capabilities. Enhanced Regional Ties: Quiet support from Gulf neighbours laid the foundation for deeper intelligence and missile defence collaboration. The Costs: Civilian Anxiety: While direct casualties were low, the psychological toll was high. Israeli citizens endured days of missile alerts; Iranians feared further Israeli raids. Global Economic Shock: Oil prices spiked above $130 a barrel. Middle Eastern trade routes suffered disruptions, triggering inflation and investor unease. Diplomatic Repercussions: While some Western allies expressed private support, many publicly condemned Israel. UN debates were tense, and protests erupted globally. The Bigger Picture: A Turning Point Without Resolution Though Israel's campaign dealt a major blow to Iran’s nuclear timeline, it did not resolve the core ideological and strategic conflict. Tehran remains defiant, pledging to rebuild its programme stronger than before. Yet the regional landscape has undeniably shifted. Traditional animosities are giving way to new pragmatism. Israel, once regionally isolated, now operates from a position of strength and calculated resolve. Peace remains elusive. The conflict pressed pause on Iran’s nuclear threat but also planted seeds for future instability. The broader question of coexistence remains unanswered. Still, for Israel, the operation was a calculated risk, anchored in timing, technology, and a deep-rooted commitment to survival. The stars may have aligned in 2025, but the long arc of Middle Eastern history continues to unfold.