How did the June 2025 strikes affect regional alliances and the risk calculus for retaliatory attacks by Iran or its proxies?
Executive summary
The June 2025 strikes reshaped regional alignments by tightening a U.S.–Israeli security partnership while simultaneously alienating many regional and global actors and weakening Iran’s conventional and proxy retaliatory capacity in the near term; however, they also hardened Tehran’s political posture and created incentives for more diffuse, asymmetric retaliation (cyber, energy, legal maneuvers and irregular proxies) that complicate risk calculations for future attacks [1] [2] [3].
1. Strategic consolidation between Washington and Jerusalem — clearer partnership, greater political cost
The strikes, including major U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and coordinated Israeli operations, cemented an operational bond between the United States and Israel and signaled willingness to translate intelligence into kinetic action, but that proximity carried diplomatic costs as many global and regional capitals publicly criticized the strikes and urged restraint, constraining how overtly Washington and its partners can operate going forward [4] [5] [6].
2. Proxy networks degraded — immediate blunt to Iran’s regional reach
Analysts documented that air and targeted strikes killed senior Iranian military figures and struck missile storage and launch infrastructure, degrading Iran’s ability to mass-launch ballistic strikes and impeding the logistical backbone that sustains proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, a tactical success that reduced the scale and accuracy of Iranian barrages during the campaign [7] [8] [9] [10].
3. Short-term reduction in high-volume, state-level retaliation but rise in dispersed attacks
While Iran’s capacity to mount large, precise missile waves against Israeli or U.S. military targets was measurably diminished—Israel and U.S. partners intercepted most projectiles and Iranian launch rates were much lower than Tehran’s initial public threats—the risk calculus shifted toward more frequent, smaller-scale or asymmetric attacks (drone salvos, Houthi strikes, cyber intrusions, attacks on shipping and energy infrastructure), which are harder to deter and attribute quickly [8] [9] [2].
4. Political hardening in Tehran increases long-term escalation risk
Iran’s reaction was not limited to strikes: hardline legal and political measures (notably parliament moves to suspend IAEA cooperation) institutionalized a more confrontational nuclear posture, reducing transparency and increasing the probability of opaque escalation paths that could be read by adversaries as justification for pre-emptive or retaliatory steps—raising long-term systemic risk even if immediate kinetic options are degraded [3] [11].
5. Regional partners recalibrate — caution, public distance, and latent alignment shifts
States across the region reacted unevenly: some U.S. partners reinforced defenses (temporary redeployment of Patriot batteries), while several neighboring governments expressed public concern or condemnation, reflecting a fragmentation in regional consensus that complicates alliance signaling and lowers the political appetite for joining kinetic reprisals; Russia and China’s condemnations also illustrate alternative diplomatic umbrellas Iran might seek, even if they don’t translate into security guarantees [6] [5] [12].
6. The new risk calculus — cheaper, deniable axes of retaliation and the premium on attribution
Because the strikes reduced Tehran’s high-end retaliatory capacity, Iran and its proxies have incentives to prioritize cheaper, deniable, and economically disruptive measures (maritime harassment in the Strait of Hormuz, cyberattacks, proxy harassment within neighboring states), making attribution and proportional response more fraught and increasing the chance of miscalculation; simultaneously, the international condemnation of strikes raises the political cost of large-scale follow-on attacks by Israel or the U.S., which can act as a moderating constraint on immediate escalation even as it pushes Iran toward covert options [9] [1] [2].
7. Balanced judgment — tactical victory, strategic uncertainty
The strikes achieved tactical objectives—degrading missile stocks, degrading command nodes, and killing key operators—while reinforcing U.S.–Israeli deterrence signaling, but they also produced strategic downsides: diplomatic isolation risks, a harder Iranian domestic posture that severs oversight, and a shift in retaliation toward diffuse, hard-to-deter methods; the net effect is a lowered short-term capacity for state-level reprisal but a higher, more complicated long-term risk profile for asymmetric, proxy, and non-kinetic retaliation [7] [3] [4].