The Israel-Iran Proxy Conflict: How to Read the Situation from Behind the Negotiating Table?
The clock reads 4:00 a.m. In Tel Aviv, as in Tehran, the defining moments aren't measured in hours but in the seconds between a decision for war and a decision for peace. Here, in this corner of the world, we're used to reading the situation with an eye that never misses the small details behind the big headlines. What's happening today between Israel and Iran is not just an exchange of blows; it's the culmination of a proxy conflict that has spanned decades, and now the mask is off, and the confrontation has become as direct as we've never seen before.
A few days ago, it seemed everyone was bracing for the worst-case scenario. Tehran's messages reached mediators with five clear conditions for a ceasefire—not just passing demands, but red lines. Anyone following closely understands that this moment is like a chapter from the book “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 that stretches from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.
In closed corridors, Eliot Kaufman's name is coming up a lot these days. Not because he holds any magic answers, but because his experience with Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy reminds us of one simple truth: intelligence alone doesn't make policy, but its absence creates disasters. What's happening now on Israel's northern border, and deep inside Iran, is a real test of that statement. Tehran wants to lift the economic blockade and wants assurances that American military influence won't expand into its immediate neighbourhood. Israel, on the other hand, finds itself facing a difficult equation: how do you deter an adversary when you know that a strike today will be met with a double blow tomorrow?
This conflict has dimensions that aren't read solely through the roar of explosions, but also through books that describe the isolation of decision-making. The book “Israel Alone”, for instance, discussed the idea that the Hebrew state, in critical moments, finds itself facing the world alone. But today's reality shows that this isolation is relative. The whole world is now watching, and the question on the table of the unofficial negotiations is: Are we facing an open regional war, or are both sides looking for a way out that returns things to how 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 important point: the Israel-Iran proxy conflict is no longer a proxy conflict. It has become direct. And this 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 beginning, the UAE based 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 maritime shipping lanes to stay open, and we don't want this conflict to become an excuse for settling larger regional scores.
If you want to understand where things are headed, look at three key points:
- Iran's Demands Ceiling: The five conditions coming out of closed circles in Tehran aren't just for negotiation; they're meant to test the other side's seriousness. The demands include a comprehensive halt to attacks and guarantees that Iranian sites in Syria won't be targeted—which brings us back to the proxy box we thought we had left.
- U.S. Military Movements: Unprecedented movements of additional American forces in the region have been clear to observers. This isn't a sign of imminent war; it's a dual deterrence message: for both Iran and Israel. Washington doesn't want the conflict to expand on the eve of sensitive elections.
- The Language of the Markets: Oil prices haven't spiked crazily despite the tensions. This suggests that major investors in the region are reading the most likely scenario: a limited war of attrition followed by exhausting negotiations, not an all-out confrontation. The market here is smart and understands that no one wants to burn all their bridges.
In conclusion, from my experience covering this file for ten years, I can say that the current moment holds a great irony: the greatest danger isn't in the strike that happened, but in miscalculating the next step. Tehran knows that Tel Aviv is under internal pressure to achieve "clear deterrence," and Tel Aviv knows that Tehran won't accept losing the leverage it has carefully built over two decades. Negotiations, even through mediators, are now happening in the operations room, not in meeting rooms. The coming days will determine whether we will read this situation as just another chapter in a long book, or as a turning point that redraws the map of the Middle East entirely.