The Psychology of Escalation: Understanding the Iran-Israel Conflict – By: Sajid ur Rehman
The deadly military conflict between Iran and Israel that erupted on June 13, 2025, is not just a result of strategic calculations or political rivalry—it is the product of deep psychological, ideological, and historical forces. What began with an unprovoked and massive Israeli aerial assault on Iranian soil has turned into a dangerous spiral of retaliation, with hundreds of civilians killed, critical infrastructure destroyed, and the world inching closer to a broader regional war. While both sides hold their own narratives, it is important to acknowledge the psychological and political realities that have led Iran to perceive its recent actions as not just justified—but necessary. Israel’s airstrikes on June 12 marked the beginning of a “prolonged operation” aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The strikes hit multiple Iranian cities, including Tehran and Isfahan, targeting military sites, infrastructure, and reportedly killing top commanders.
Iran quickly responded with a coordinated counterattack, launching drones and missiles at Israeli cities and military installations. While Israeli systems intercepted many of the projectiles, the psychological message was clear: Iran would not be a passive target. Claims from Tehran of downing Israeli jets and capturing a female pilot—though denied by Israel—were used to rally internal support and showcase resolve in the face of aggression. This escalation cannot be understood in a vacuum. For decades, Israel has conducted covert and overt operations against Iran, including assassinations of scientists, cyberattacks like Stuxnet, and proxy strikes in Syria and Lebanon. Most recently, the Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus in April 2025—killing several Iranian officials—was widely seen as a breach of international law and an act of war. Iran’s decision to retaliate now, in the open, reflects a shift in its strategy: from strategic patience to direct confrontation, especially after years of Israeli impunity and growing Western silence.
Psychologically, Iran views itself as a nation under siege. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it has endured sanctions, isolation, and foreign attempts to undermine its sovereignty. The Iran-Iraq war, which left over a million dead, further cemented a national identity built around resistance. When Israel, a nuclear-armed state supported by the U.S., strikes Iranian territory, Iranian leaders and citizens alike interpret it not merely as military aggression but as part of a wider campaign to suppress Iran’s independence. In this context, retaliation is framed not as escalation but as self defense. Moreover, Israel’s recent war in Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of over 35,000 Palestinians including thousands of women and children, has added a moral dimension to Iran’s position.
To many in the region and beyond, Iran’s confrontation with Israel is not simply national defense— it is a response to what is increasingly being labeled as genocide. Iran, by retaliating, sends a broader message: that unchecked violence against Muslims and Arabs, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, will no longer go unanswered. On the Israeli side, trauma and existential fear remain powerful psychological drivers. The collective memory of the Holocaust and historical persecution fosters a worldview where any regional power with hostile rhetoric—such as Iran—is seen as a potential threat to Israel’s survival.
This fear often justifies preemptive strikes, surveillance, and aggressive diplomacy. Israeli leaders frame their actions as “defensive necessity,” even when initiating strikes, because they believe in preventing threats before they materialize. The cost of this confrontation is staggering. As of June 17, Iran has suffered at least 224 deaths and over 1,200 injuries, mostly civilians. Residential areas, media outlets, and hospitals have been damaged. In Israel, 24 have been killed, over 590 injured, and key infrastructure, such as a Haifa oil refinery, has been hit. Israel has told residents of Tehran to evacuate, while Iran has pledged to continue its operations until Israeli aggression ceases. Meanwhile, global markets are shaking, oil prices are soaring, and the threat of a wider war looms.
Domestic politics also play a critical role. In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has used the Iran threat to rally political support amid growing criticism of his handling of Gaza and internal protests. For Iran’s leadership, which faces economic hardship and popular unrest, standing up to Israel boosts national pride and distracts from domestic grievances. Both governments find political advantage in portraying themselves as defenders of their people against a mortal enemy. Despite calls for de-escalation from world powers including China, Turkey, and the G7, meaningful progress remains elusive. The United States, while calling for calm, continues to back Israel militarily, undermining its credibility as a neutral actor.
The psychological entrenchment on both sides—the belief that the other is inherently evil, expansionist, and untrustworthy—makes dialogue seem impossible. But if history teaches anything, it is that wars rarely end when either side “wins” militarily. They end when the psychological walls begin to crack—when fear gives way to understanding, when trauma is acknowledged rather than exploited, and when leaders recognize the humanity of those they once dehumanized. The Iran-Israel conflict is not only about drones and missiles. It is a battle of stories—of identity, history, and survival. Iran may be portrayed as a threat, but its actions must be seen in the context of repeated violations against its sovereignty and the broader regional injustices, particularly in Gaza. Israel, haunted by its past, often acts out of fear—but fear is not a justification for endless war. The world must look beyond the immediate explosions and examine the deeper wounds—only then can we hope to interrupt this tragic cycle.
Sajid ur Rehman
Student of English Literature and Linguistics
International Islamic University, Islamabad
