Israel and Iran’s Proxy Conflict: How to Read the Situation from Behind the Negotiating Table?

The clock reads 4 AM. In Tel Aviv, as in Tehran, the defining moments aren't measured in hours but in the seconds separating a decision for war from a decision for peace. Here, in this corner of the world, we're used to reading the situation with an eye that doesn't miss the small details behind the bold headlines. What's unfolding today between Israel and Iran isn't just an exchange of blows; it's the culmination of a proxy conflict spanning decades, and now the mask is off, and the confrontation is direct in a way we've never seen before.

Just days ago, it seemed everyone was bracing for the worst-case scenario. Messages from Tehran delivered five clear conditions for a ceasefire to the mediators—not just passing demands but red lines. Anyone following closely realises this moment is like a chapter from “A Call at 4 Am: Thirteen Prime Ministers and the Crucial Decisions That Shaped Israeli Politics”, where political calculations intertwine with strategic hubris. Decision-makers there, as in Tehran, know full well that war isn't just a military battle; it's a chess game stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

In closed corridors, Elliott Kaufman's name is being mentioned a lot these days. Not because he holds any magic answers, but because his expertise in Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy reminds us of one truth: intelligence alone doesn't shape decisions, but its absence creates disasters. What's happening now on Israel's northern border and deep inside Iran is a real test of that axiom. Tehran wants the economic blockade lifted, and it wants guarantees that US military influence won't expand into its immediate neighbourhood. On the other side, Israel finds itself facing a tough equation: how to deter an opponent when it knows full well that today's strike will be met with double the force tomorrow?

This conflict has dimensions that can't be read solely through the sound of explosions, but also through books that describe the isolation of decision-making. “Israel Alone”, for example, explored the idea that the Jewish state, in moments of decision, finds itself facing the world by itself. But the reality today proves that this isolation is relative. The whole world is now watching, and the question on the table of the undeclared negotiations is: are we facing an open regional war, or are both sides looking for a way out that returns things to where they were just 24 hours ago, but with a new balance of power?

In discussion sessions here in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, we focus on the most critical point: the Israel-Iran proxy conflict is no longer a proxy conflict. It's become direct. And that carries both opportunities and risks. For us in the region, the relative calm we're experiencing isn't disconnected from what's happening; it's the result of a careful reading of the situation. From the outset, the UAE has built its strategy on the principle of wise neutrality, but this neutrality doesn't mean absence. Messages are being sent quietly and publicly: we want stability, we want shipping lanes to remain open, and we don't want this conflict to become an outlet for settling larger regional scores.

If you want to understand where things are headed, focus on three specific points:

• The Ceiling of Iranian Demands: The five conditions coming out of closed circles in Tehran aren't just for negotiations; they're a test of the other side's seriousness. The demands include a comprehensive halt to attacks and guarantees that Iranian sites in Syria won't be targeted. This brings us back to the proxy dynamic we thought we'd moved beyond.
• US Military Activity: Unprecedented movements of additional US forces in the region have been clear to those watching. This isn't a sign of imminent war; it's a dual deterrent message: aimed at both Iran and Israel. Washington doesn't want the conflict to widen on the eve of a sensitive election.
• The Language of the Markets: Oil prices haven't spiked wildly despite the tensions. This suggests that major investors in the region are reading the most likely scenario: a limited war of attrition followed by gruelling negotiations, not an all-out confrontation. The market here is smart; it knows no one wants to burn all their bridges.

In conclusion, from my decade of experience covering this file, I can say the current moment holds a great paradox: the greatest danger isn't in the strike that happened, but in miscalculating the next step. Tehran knows Tel Aviv is under internal pressure to achieve "clear deterrence," and Tel Aviv knows Tehran won't accept losing the leverage it has carefully built over two decades. The negotiations, even if conducted through intermediaries, are now taking place in the war room, not the meeting room. The coming days will determine whether we read this situation as just another chapter in a long-running saga, or as a defining chapter that completely redraws the map of the Middle East.