№ 32 (90), 2025. PIR Center hosted a seminar titled “Iran-Israel Confrontation: New Balance of Power in the Middle East and Lessons of 2025”

MOSCOW, SEPTEMBER 26, 2025. PIR PRESS. “An important lesson from the 12-day war between Iran and Israel is that the Middle East was not prepared for such a crisis. Of course, large-scale clashes have occurred there before. This is not the first high-intensity conflict, nor the first confrontation ‘on the brink of existence’ between two states. However, for the first time, Iran and Israel – the ‘grandmasters’ of Middle Eastern politics – have clashed, both having previously avoided confrontation, believing that there was no way out of the situation. As June showed, there is indeed a way out, at least for a time,” said Dr. Leonid Tsukanov, PIR Center Consultant.

On September 11, 2025 PIR Center, jointly with MGIMO University, hosted a seminar “Iran-Israel Confrontation: New Balance of Power in the Middle East and Lessons of 2025.”

The speaker at the seminar was Dr. Leonid Tsukanov, a PIR Center Consultant, analyzed in details the complex Iran-Israel confrontation. The expert explored the historical roots of the conflict and recent shifts in its dynamics and highlighted key phases of the confrontation, noting the gradual transition toward open military engagement in recent years. Dr. Leonid Tsukanov also examined the military strategies of both sides, analyzing their responses to current challenges and the potential implications for the region in the future.

Continuing his presentation, the speaker expanded on the current situation in the Middle East, emphasizing that despite worsening relations between Iran and Israel, key regional players remain cautious in their actions. The expert noted that, although the conflict between the two states has escalated to a new level with direct military confrontations, many countries in the region, including Arab monarchies, continue to avoid direct involvement. Dr. Leonid Tsukanov also highlighted the importance of diplomatic efforts, pointing out the role of neutral countries like Oman, which are trying to mediate in the conflict.

Special attention was paid to the impact of the Iran-Israel confrontation on international security, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possible responses of global powers like the United States, China, and Russia.

In conclusion, the expert emphasized that, despite short-term successes, neither side has secured a definitive victory, and the conflict could persist for many years, with new flare-ups of violence likely to affect the regional political and economic situation.

At the end of the seminar, participants asked questions and shared their perspectives with the speaker.

Mr. Artem Astvatsaturov, a first-year student of MAprogram “International Security” asked about the prospects of establishing a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone WMDFZin the Middle East.

Dr. Leonid Tsukanov emphasized that establishing a Middle East WMDFZ is a complex task, mainly due to Israel’s stance, as it is unwilling to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. The expert also noted that the changing nuclear ambitions of other regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, create additional challenges. Overall, addressing this issue will require long-term efforts and overcoming many political and regional barriers.

Mr. Ilya Subbotin, a first-year student, a first-year student of MAprogram “International Security”at asked about the results of the “12-day war.” The student inquired about the specific achievements of Iran and Israel during the conflict and who, according to the speaker, came out on top.

Dr. Leonid Tsukanov pointed out that Israel had several goals: eliminating key figures in Iran’s political and military leadership, destroying missile bases and nuclear facilities, and possibly changing the regime. As a result, Israel achieved some partial successes; however, Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially underground ones, remained mostly unharmed. Regarding regime change, Israel failed because support for émigré monarchists did not lead to success. While Iran quickly regained its capabilities by relocating missile production to third countries, particularly Yemen. In the end, despite Israel’s numerical advantage, Iran strengthened its position and increased internal cohesion. From a security strategy perspective, this is a negative sign for Tel Aviv, as Tehran maintained significant military capabilities.

Keywords: Iran, Israel, NPT

NPT

E16/SHAH – 25/09/26