Israel and Iran’s Proxy Conflict: What’s Really Happening Behind the Negotiating Table?

The clock reads 4 am. In Tel Aviv, just as in Tehran, the defining moments aren’t measured in hours, but in the seconds that separate a decision for war from a decision for peace. Here, in this part of the world, we’re used to reading the situation with an eye for the small details behind the big headlines. What’s happening today between Israel and Iran isn’t just an exchange of blows; it’s the culmination of a decades-long proxy conflict, and now the mask has slipped, leading to a direct confrontation unlike anything we’ve seen before.

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

In closed-door circles, Eliot Cohen’s name is coming up a lot these days. Not because he has all the answers, but because his expertise in Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy underscores one simple truth: intelligence alone doesn’t shape decisions, but its absence creates disasters. What’s unfolding now on Israel’s northern border and deep inside Iran is a real test of that idea. Tehran wants relief from its economic pressures, and it wants guarantees that American military influence won’t expand directly on its doorstep. Meanwhile, Israel finds itself facing a tough equation: how do you deter an opponent when you know that a strike today will be met with a stronger one tomorrow?

This conflict isn’t just understood through the sound of explosions, but through the books that describe the solitude of decision-making. “Israel Alone”, for example, explored the idea that in moments of decision, the Jewish state often finds itself facing the world by itself. But current reality shows that isolation is relative. The whole world is watching now, and the question on the backchannel negotiation table is: are we heading towards an all-out regional war, or are both sides looking for a way out that resets things to where they were just 24 hours ago, but with a new balance of power?

In discussions here in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, we focus on the key point: the Israel-Iran proxy conflict is no longer a proxy war. It has become direct. This brings 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 start, the UAE has based its strategy on a principle of wise neutrality, but that neutrality doesn’t mean staying out of it. Messages are being sent discreetly and publicly: we want stability, we want shipping lanes to stay open, and we don’t want this conflict to become a pretext 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 emerging from closed-door 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 had moved past.
• US Military Movements: Unprecedented movements of additional US forces in the region have been clear to observers. This isn’t a sign of imminent war, but a dual deterrence message: for 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 tension. This means 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 savvy, and knows no one wants to burn all their bridges.

In conclusion, from my ten years of experience covering this issue, I can say the current moment holds a great paradox: the biggest danger isn’t the strike that has happened, but a miscalculation of 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. Negotiations, even through mediators, are now happening in the war room, not in conference rooms. The coming days will determine whether we read this as just another chapter in a long book, or as a pivotal chapter that redraws the entire map of the Middle East.