Early on 13 June, the Israeli Air Force conducted coordinated raids on targets in Iran, which were officially identified as the start of a three-week operation aimed at the strategic military infrastructure of the opponent. Will the Middle East again become an inflame that will lead to the outbreak of World War III?

Israel vs Iran: the forces of the war fleet – a campaign of precise strokes and a risk of escalation

This question is increasingly appearing in international media. The Islamic Republic of Iran – a theocratic state of the Ayatollah, drawing from the heritage of the Persian Empire – is not a typical regional player. It is a cultural and military power whose influence extends from the Levant to the Oman Gulf.

With some of the world's largest oil reserves and the 16th largest military force in global terms (Global Firepower 2025), Iran remains an unpredictable but effective actor in the international security arrangement. Despite international sanctions and political isolation, it consistently pursues its own vision of governance in the region.

One of the main objectives of Israeli raids is to destroy or at least delay Iran's nuclear program. According to data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Iran is approaching the achievement of nuclear weapons production capacity – in the horizon about 12 months. It's a matter for Israel strategic security and, for the rest of the world, potential destabilisation of the international order and violation of global rules on nuclear weapons reduction. For this reason, a similar position has been taken by the United States, which for years have recognised the emergence of a new nuclear state in the Middle East as a serious threat.

In response to Israeli raids, Iran conducted a massive missile and drone counterattack, hitting targets in the Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem area. Nevertheless, Iran's official position suggests aversion to further escalation – Tehran cites the right to self-defense.

In the face of increasing tension and the lack of a clear response from Tehran, analysts around the world are trying to predict possible paths to escalate the conflict. One such analysis was published by the portal "The Maritime Executive". The following material is a translation of this publication, provided that the opinions contained in it reflect the author's position rather than the editorial of the portal.

Maritime stability and geopolitical pressure

Although there have been no serious disruptions in shipping, increased military activity and missile counterattack of Iran increase the risk of destabilisation in the Gulf region. Most carriers bypass Iran's airspace, but did not suspend connections – routes were routed through safer corridors.

On the other hand, according to the analyses of companies involved in traffic monitoring of commercial ships, which were cited by the "Wall Street Journal", the number of ships awaiting entry to Iran's ports, including the Bandar Abbas area, has increased as of 13 June. Some analysts connect it with an earlier explosion in its port of commerce, which may indicate the effects of Israel's precise strikes. However, satellite images did not show increased activity.

Ormuz Strait – Red Line for Iran

On the evening of June 15, Iran responded by force for the first time in this operation, carrying out a massive missile and drone attack on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Haifa. Although most missiles were captured, some of them hit civilian infrastructure, causing casualties and destruction. The Tehran authorities have identified actions as a proportionate response to Israeli raids. Experts warn that escalation can lead to conflict between the United States and Arab states. It should be stressed that these events took place after the publication of the study The Maritime Executive And they weren't included in it.

Iran's closure of the Ormuz Strait would have far-reaching economic and geopolitical consequences. It is through this narrow corridor that nearly 20% of the world's oil goes through. Any attempt to block it would paralyze global trade in energy resources and deprive Tehran of its primary source of income, at the same time triggering a confrontation with the United States and NATO fleets.

The troops of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), despite having the means to carry out asymmetric activities, as well as operational capabilities in coastal areas, are unable to effectively oppose the organized assault forces of the Western war fleets – even with the involvement of the Iranian Navy (Nedaj).

A deterioration of security in this area would also affect the interests of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States which – despite his cautious attitude toward the Israeli offensive – they would be forced to strengthen military cooperation with Washington. The Iranian authorities, aware of this dependence, have been cautious so far – although on 14 June, the state agency IRINN informed of the consideration of this scenario.

Risk of regional escalation and Israeli campaign objectives

Any possible attacks by Iran on the military facilities of the Gulf Cooperation Council states or on US bases deployed in their territory would most likely result in closer cooperation with the United States. Although the leaders of the GCC states do not declare openly supporting Washington's actions, geostrategic interests and existing relations point to a willingness to act together – despite strong, social support for the Palestinian cause.

From an operational perspective, Israel focuses its activities on eliminating the potential of the offensive Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), including a network of 24 identified rocket compasses located in the western part of the country. These facilities – located in the north-south line – are heavily fortified and hidden in underground tunnels. They allow the rapid use of both mobile rocket launchers and unmanned systems, which can be activated within minutes.

The Kermanshah Konesh division, where there are at least 60 bunkers hidden in underground tunnels, was one of the first targets of the Israeli strike. Film materials from raids indicate multiple explosions, which may indicate a hit on active rocket stations or weapons depots.

Some of these facilities also have reinforced silos, equipped with automatic ballistic missile handling mechanisms, operating on the principle of revolver carousel. An example is the complex in Haji Abad, where at least seven silos were identified in the Bahrain–Rijad direction. Additionally, a number of tunnel complexes have been located on the coast, in which IRGC Neds' missile units are stationed, designed for asymmetric operations in the coastal zone.

The Maritime Executive study does not address this aspect, although it is equally important. In addition to direct confrontation, indirect actions also pose danger. One possible element of the Iranian response may be the actions of terrorist groups associated with Tehran. Their attacks may be conducted from territories of other countries, which gives Iran the opportunity to avoid direct involvement of regular forces.

Hezbollah, despite the weakening of some of the supply routes from Iran by Syria, including as a result of Israeli raids, still has real potential to operate in the region. Proiran groups in Iraq and Huti rebels in Yemen, weakened by earlier US Navy attacks but still armed with Iranian missiles and unmanned systems, have similar possibilities. Terrorist attacks in Israel and attacks on Israeli citizens abroad, including in Europe, are also possible.

Israeli campaign priorities and selective impact strategy

From the point of view of Israeli planning, actions to completely neutralise the previously mentioned missile installations are crucial to ensuring security against potential counterattacks. A special threat is the facilities equipped with modern mid-range ballistic missiles like Haj Qassem – solid fuel constructions designed for rapid firing from hiding. According to Western sources, they can be equipped with maneuvering warheads and use passive guidance systems, which significantly impedes their interception.

Israel presents the ongoing campaign as a forced action to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. At the same time, it is an operation calculated to permanently reduce Iran's missile arsenal and weaken the long-term expansion strategy pursued by the Islamic Republic by supporting the proxy and destabilising the countries of the region. In this regard, Israel's objectives remain in line with the interests of the United States.

An additional objective is to weaken the IRGC command structures by precise strikes aimed at the leadership elite of this formation, which are responsible for planning asymmetric operations and retaliation campaigns. At the same time, you can see a certain restraint in dealing with the regular armed forces of Iran – the Navy (Nedaj) or the land troops – which some think is more linked to the reform camp represented by President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Three days of precise raids and devastating effects on Iranian strategic infrastructure. More than 200 combat aircraft, hundreds of missions and dozens of targets hit – from command stations, through nuclear weapons development centers, to underground missile silos. Israeli Air Force (IAF) almost unhindered penetrate into Iranian airspace, having previously effectively neutralized anti-aircraft defense systems. As a result, several high-ranking commanders and key scientists involved in the nuclear program were eliminated.

The use includes, among others, precision penetration bombs of the Bunker Buster type, which allow to damage targets hidden deep underground. The strikes are carried out with high intensity, and the campaign scale indicates a pre-prepared and extensive operation aimed at permanently weakening Iran's ability to wage a symmetrical and asymmetric war.

On June 14, evening, Israeli warships were involved in anti-aircraft defense operations in the Haifa area in connection with Iran's incoming unmanned air systems (UAVs) and rockets.

Iran War Fleet at Bandar Abbas

List of units at Bandar Abbas Warport (satellite image dated 2 June):

1. 2 × Moudge rocket frigates
2. 2 × Alvand rocket frigates
3. OP project 877EKM / Kilo type 
4. 2 × Sina/Kaman rocket boats
5. IRIS Radioelectronic Recognition Ship Agros (H 313)
6. Hengam IRIS landing ship Larak (L 512) 
7. Bandar Abbas IRIS supply ship Bushehr (K 442)
8. 2 × Hengam type landing ships – IRIS Tonb (L 513) and IRIS Lavan (L 514)
9. 2 × Hendijan-type auxiliary ships
10. 4 × Delvar-type auxiliary ships 
11. 2 × Kaman / Sina type rocket boats 
12. Probably 2 × Hendijan-type auxiliary ships
13. Miniature OPs of the type Ghadir and Nahang
14. Kilo OP type 
15. Coastal Fateh OP 
16. Ship-base IRIS Macron (K 441) 

Analysis of satellite images from June 2 shows that most of Iran's Navy (Nedaya) ships are still standing at Bandar Abbas base. Such a demonstration "keeping the fleet in port" suggests that Tehran deliberately avoids escalation at sea. Israel, on the other hand, refrains from attacking the regular navy, hoping that Nedaja could become a counterweight to the IRGC's dominated hardheaded commanders. Such a calculation leaves Tel Aviv the gateway to using a possible internal dispute in Iran in his favour.

The fleet composition concentrated in Bandar Abbas confirms that the port is Nedaja's main naval base and Neds' key logistics facilities. It is the natural goal of Israeli preventive strikes aimed at Tehran's submarine and missile capabilities.

Source: The Maritime Executive/MD

• Iran: Two tankers detained on suspicion of oil smuggling
• Iranian spy ships controlled by IRGC in the Red Sea
• Is the US attack on Iran inevitable?