伊朗的代理人戰爭邏輯與以色列的主動攻擊：中東戰略博弈的轉捩點

長期以來，伊朗在中東的戰略核心是“代理人戰爭”——通過支持黎巴嫩真主党、巴勒斯坦哈馬斯、葉門胡塞武裝等地區勢力，對以色列和美國進行間接打擊，而非直接軍事對抗。這種策略既能施加壓力，又能避免與以色列或美國爆發全面戰爭，降低自身風險。然而，2024年至2025年，以色列卻罕見地直接攻擊伊朗本土（如2025年6月對納坦茲核設施的打擊），標誌著中東衝突進入新階段。

伊朗為何長期依賴代理人戰爭？

避免直接軍事衝突的風險:伊朗軍事實力（尤其是空軍和導彈防禦）遠不如以色列，若直接開戰，其核設施、軍事基地和政權穩定性可能遭受毀滅性打擊。

通過代理人戰爭，伊朗能保持“可否認性”（plausible deniability），即使真主党或胡塞武裝襲擊以色列，伊朗可聲稱“與己無關”，降低被報復的風險。

低成本高效益的消耗戰:代理人戰爭讓伊朗能以較低代價牽制以色列。例如，真主党在黎巴嫩邊境的火箭彈襲擾，迫使以色列長期維持高昂的國防開支。

胡塞武裝在紅海襲擊商船，擾亂全球經濟，間接施壓美國和國際社會。

擴大地區影響力:通過支持什葉派武裝，伊朗構建“抵抗軸心”（Axis of Resistance），在敘利亞、伊拉克、葉門等地擴大勢力範圍，形成對以色列的包圍網。

為何這次以色列選擇直接攻擊伊朗？

代理人戰爭的局限性被突破:2023年10月哈馬斯突襲以色列後，以色列認定伊朗是幕後主使，但傳統的反制手段（如空襲敘利亞境內伊朗目標）已無法震懾德黑蘭。2024年4月，伊朗首次直接向以色列發射數百枚導彈和無人機，雖被攔截，但打破“不直接對抗”的默契，迫使以色列升級報復手段。

伊朗核計畫接近“不可逆”階段:國際原子能機構（IAEA）報告顯示，伊朗的鈾濃縮純度已達60%（武器級為90%），並加速生產離心機。以色列認為，若不直接打擊伊朗核設施，未來將面臨更嚴峻的核威脅。

美國戰略調整的視窗期:拜登政府在中東採取“有限介入”政策，不願直接軍事打擊伊朗。以色列擔心未來美國可能進一步退縮，因此趁現在美國仍提供情報和防空支持時，先發制人。

後續可能的發展

伊朗的報復：繼續“影子戰爭”還是升級？

短期：伊朗可能避免全面戰爭，但會通過真主党、胡塞武裝加大對以色列和美國的襲擊，例如：真主党向以色列北部發射更多火箭彈；胡塞武裝加強紅海航運襲擊，推高全球油價；伊拉克民兵攻擊美軍基地。

長期：伊朗可能加速核計畫，甚至公開退出《不擴散核武器條約》（NPT），迫使國際社會讓步。

以色列的下一步：持續打擊還是尋求外交解決？

若伊朗核設施受損嚴重，以色列可能暫緩進一步行動，轉向鞏固防空（如“鐵穹”系統升級）。若伊朗恢復核活動，以色列可能發動更多“斬首行動”，針對革命衛隊高層或核科學家。

國際社會的角色：調停還是選邊站？

美國：川普政府希望加大對伊朗制裁，同時約束以色列過度報復。

俄羅斯與中國：可能推動聯合國調停，但伊朗若依賴中俄支持，可能更不願妥協。

阿拉伯國家：沙國、阿聯酋等雖與以色列關係正常化，但若衝突升級，可能被迫表態，影響地區穩定。

最危險的情景：誤判導致全面戰爭

若以色列誤判伊朗核進展，發動更大規模空襲；或伊朗誤判美國底線，直接攻擊以色列城市，可能引發地區大戰，甚至將美俄捲入。

結論：中東進入“直接對抗”新時代

過去幾十年，伊朗和以色列維持著“代理人戰爭”的恐怖平衡，但2024-2025年的衝突顯示，這一模式正在失效。以色列不再滿足於打擊伊朗的“週邊勢力”，而是直接挑戰其政權核心；伊朗則面臨兩難——若退縮，地區威信受損；若強硬回應，可能招致毀滅性打擊。

未來的中東局勢將更加不可預測，關鍵在於：

伊朗能否在不引發全面戰爭的情況下挽回顏面？

以色列能否在不刺激地區大戰的前提下遏制伊朗核計畫？

國際社會能否在局勢失控前找到外交出路？

這場博弈已不僅是伊朗與以色列的對抗，更是全球大國在中東影響力的重新洗牌。

The Logic Behind Iran’s Proxy Wars and Israel’s Preemptive Strikes: A Strategic Turning Point in the Middle East

For decades, Iran’s strategic doctrine in the Middle East has revolved around the use of proxy warfare—supporting regional groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Houthis in Yemen to launch indirect attacks against Israel and the United States. This approach allows Tehran to apply pressure while avoiding direct military confrontation, minimizing its own risk. However, from 2024 to 2025, Israel has taken the rare step of directly attacking Iranian territory—notably its June 2025 strike on the Natanz nuclear facility—signaling a major shift in the dynamics of regional conflict.

Why has Iran long relied on proxy warfare?

To avoid the risks of direct military confrontation: Iran’s military—especially its air force and missile defense capabilities—lags far behind Israel’s. A direct war could devastate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military installations, and regime stability.

To maintain plausible deniability: When Hezbollah or the Houthis attack Israeli targets, Iran can claim it is not directly involved, thereby reducing the risk of direct retaliation.

To wage a low-cost, high-efficiency war of attrition: Proxies allow Iran to pressure Israel at a fraction of the cost. For instance, Hezbollah’s regular rocket fire from Lebanon forces Israel to sustain high defense expenditures. The Houthis' attacks on shipping in the Red Sea disrupt global trade and exert indirect pressure on the U.S. and the broader international community.

To expand regional influence: Through support for Shiite militias, Iran has built what it calls the “Axis of Resistance,” broadening its sphere of influence in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and encircling Israel both geographically and strategically.

Why has Israel chosen to strike Iran directly this time?

Proxy war limitations have been breached: Following Hamas’s unprecedented attack on Israel in October 2023, Israel identified Iran as the mastermind. However, traditional responses—like airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria—proved ineffective. In April 2024, Iran escalated tensions by launching hundreds of missiles and drones directly at Israel—most of which were intercepted—but this marked a dramatic departure from the previous unspoken rule of indirect engagement. Israel responded with escalated, direct retaliation.

Iran’s nuclear program is nearing the point of no return: According to the IAEA, Iran’s uranium enrichment has reached 60% purity (with weapons-grade at 90%) and its centrifuge production has accelerated. Israel views this as an existential threat that demands preemptive action before it's too late.

A strategic window amid U.S. disengagement: The Biden administration has adopted a policy of “limited engagement” in the Middle East and is reluctant to take direct military action against Iran. Fearing future U.S. withdrawal, Israel likely views this period—while still enjoying U.S. intelligence and missile defense support—as its best opportunity to act decisively.

What comes next?

Iranian retaliation: Continue “shadow war” or escalate?

In the short term, Iran is unlikely to risk an all-out war, but it may intensify proxy attacks:

• Hezbollah could increase rocket fire into northern Israel.
• Houthis might escalate attacks on Red Sea shipping, driving up global oil prices.
• Iraqi militias may target U.S. bases more aggressively.

In the long term, Iran might:

• Accelerate its nuclear program.
• Consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pressure the international community into concessions.

Israel’s next moves: More strikes or a diplomatic pivot?

If Iran’s nuclear infrastructure suffers substantial damage, Israel may pause further attacks and shift focus to bolstering its defenses (e.g., upgrades to the Iron Dome). However, if Iran resumes enrichment, Israel could resume targeted assassinations of IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists.

The international community’s role: Mediation or polarization?

• The United States: A potential Trump-led administration may impose harsher sanctions on Iran while trying to rein in Israel’s retaliatory overreach.
• Russia and China: Likely to push for a UN-led peace process, but their support may embolden Iran to resist compromise.
• Arab states: Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have normalized relations with Israel but may face pressure to take sides if the conflict escalates—threatening regional stability.

The most dangerous scenario: Miscalculation leading to full-scale war

If Israel misjudges the speed of Iran’s nuclear progress and launches large-scale airstrikes—or if Iran misreads U.S. red lines and directly attacks Israeli cities—full-blown war could erupt. Such a conflict risks dragging in global powers like Russia and the United States.

Conclusion: The Middle East Enters an Era of Direct Confrontation

For decades, the uneasy balance of proxy warfare allowed Iran and Israel to avoid direct conflict. But the events of 2024–2025 suggest this model is collapsing. Israel is no longer content to battle Iran’s peripheral forces—it is striking at the heart of the regime. Meanwhile, Iran faces a strategic dilemma: retreat and lose regional credibility, or escalate and risk devastating retaliation.

The future of the region is now more uncertain than ever. The central questions are:

• Can Iran save face without triggering a full-scale war?
• Can Israel curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions without sparking regional catastrophe?
• Can the international community find a diplomatic off-ramp before the situation spirals out of control?

This is no longer just a clash between two regional rivals. It is a larger contest—one that may redefine great power influence in the Middle East for years to come.