The Long Path of Confrontation Between Iran and Israel
The relationship between Israel and Iran was not originally antagonistic. Iran, which recognized Israel in 1950, maintained friendly ties with it until 1979, including economic cooperation and security collaboration. Both countries united against Arab influence in the region. However, after the Islamic Revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini to power, Israel became Iran's main enemy. The new Supreme Leader Khamenei continued this hardline stance, making the destruction of the "little Satan - Israel" and the "great Satan - the USA" a fundamental principle of Iranian foreign policy.Israel perceived this as a serious threat and responded with harsh measures, including military actions and intelligence operations. Iran, along with its proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Houthis, and Hamas, came to be seen as a primary danger to Israel's existence.
The USA has always been a key ally of Israel, and its influence on regional politics runs deep.
The history of hostility between the USA and Iran also traces back to events following the 1979 revolution, when ideological conflicts, struggles for resources, and opposition to Iran's nuclear program began.
Thus, both sides remain irreconcilable in their positions, making further developments in the conflict inevitable.
Escalation of the Conflict
Last summer, the confrontation entered an open phase. Israel and the USA claimed that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and further waiting became impossible.As a result of the twelve-day war, not only the technological superiority of the American-Israeli alliance was demonstrated, but also the strength of Iranian defense. Despite limited capabilities to counter air attacks, Iranian missiles and drones managed to overcome Israeli air defenses and strike important targets within Israel.
The new attack on Iran, which began on February 28, already exceeds previous events in scale, characterized by unprecedented brutality and geography. The strikes affect both military targets and civilian populations, as evidenced by tragic incidents such as a missile hitting a school, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of children.
Iran, unable to respond on equal terms, is employing a different tactic.
In response to the attacks, Iran strikes American bases and other targets in Arab countries, as well as in Azerbaijan and Iraq. One of the missiles was intercepted over Turkey.
Iran plans to wage a protracted war, sowing chaos in the region and increasing economic costs for the USA, aiming to preserve the regime on its own terms.
The USA and Israel expect that Iran will not be able to resist for long and will be forced to agree to their conditions, including abandoning its nuclear program and reducing its missile capabilities. The "decapitation" tactic used in Venezuela is also being applied in Iran; however, the regime here demonstrates greater resilience. Even after losing more than forty high-ranking leaders, the management system continues to function.
Nevertheless, plans for regime change in Iran remain in place.
The situation today does not imply the development of democracy as it did before. The USA is ready to accept any power that agrees with its demands.
Is there opposition in Iran? A strong opposition is absent; however, among the military and civilians, there are so-called "moderates" who may be willing to compromise. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, has also become active and proposes a plan that includes separating religion from the state and establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.
Although regime change in Iran currently seems unlikely, socio-economic problems in Iran are escalating, as evidenced by mass protests in January 2026, triggered by high inflation and declining living standards. The protests were suppressed by paramilitary formations, leading to thousands of casualties among the civilian population.
Iran also faces serious environmental issues.
For example, Tehran is experiencing a severe shortage of drinking water, caused by both prolonged drought and ineffective management.
Despite the discontent, support for the regime also remains significant, leading to polarization of the political situation. The regime's resilience is ensured by harsh measures that prevent the formation of organized opposition.
The Impact of the Conflict on Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan benefits from peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Therefore, the position calling for a peaceful resolution of conflicts appears strategically sound.Iran, with a population of 93 million, has significant economic and cultural potential for Central Asia. For Kyrgyzstan, Iran is an important outlet to the sea, which, in a peaceful regional context and with the launch of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, could significantly enhance the country's transit capabilities and strengthen trade and cultural exchanges.
However, based on realpolitik, one can confidently assume that as long as the current Iranian regime remains in power, pressure from Israel and the USA will not weaken.
Even if the current conflict ends, there are no guarantees that it will not resume.
The conflict will persist until one side changes its strategy or internal problems undermine its ability to continue the struggle.
An example of peaceful resolution can be found in the "Abraham Accords" of 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. These accords aim to create economic and defense cooperation, demonstrating the possibilities for exiting a long-standing confrontation.
The agreements are named after Abraham, revered in three monotheistic religions.
Expanding the "Abraham Accords" to other countries, including Iran, could open new opportunities for peaceful cooperation in the region; however, in the context of an ongoing conflict, it is premature to speak of the reality of such agreements.
