- Conflict could resume as a shadow war with targeted attacks, cyber‑espionage, and proxy warfare, says geopolitical analyst Andreas Krieg

- ‘The ceasefire will only hold if Trump is willing to pressure Netanyahu,’ says Rob Geist Pinfold, research fellow at the Peace Research Center Prague

ISTANBUL 

As a tenuous truce holds between Israel and Iran, concerns abound over a potential return to the intense conflict seen in recent weeks, while experts warn of other potential dangers and stress the need for continued restraint and engagement.

Geopolitical risk analyst Andreas Krieg is among many who view the current ceasefire as “fragile,” dependent on a delicate balance of deterrence, diplomacy, and domestic politics.

“The ceasefire might hold, but only as long as Tehran considers restraint more strategic than retaliation, Israel remains wary of triggering direct US re‑engagement, and Gulf states maintain their discreet but critical role as the bridge between pressure and peace,” Krieg told Anadolu.

However, he warned that if any link in this fragile chain breaks, conflict will likely resume, but as more of a shadow war with targeted attacks, cyber‑espionage, and proxy warfare.

“Israel … has shown a longstanding track record of engaging Iran indirectly: assassinations of nuclear scientists, cyber‑attacks and the occasional missile strike in Syria,” explained Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London.

He added that Israel’s military doctrine emphasizes deniable, precision strikes designed to impose costs without provoking full-scale war, particularly if US political support remains limited.

A return to overt warfare is possible if the ceasefire collapses, Krieg noted, but both sides recognize the potential for disastrous consequences.

Thus, escalations are likely to involve covert operations, proxy skirmishes involving Hezbollah or Iraqi militias, cyber-attacks, and sabotage campaigns.

“Israel will almost certainly continue targeting Iranian interests where it sees impunity and strategic gain, just as it has in Syria and Lebanon, leveraging Israeli airpower and spy networks,” he added.

The Trump and Netanyahu factor

Experts point out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would want to remain on US President Donald Trump’s good side by not violating the ceasefire, but his political survival might push him toward resuming conflict.

“The ceasefire will only hold if Trump is willing to pressure Netanyahu,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a research fellow at the Peace Research Center Prague, told Anadolu.

“He did this ... when he basically … demanded that Netanyahu call back his planes,” Pinfold said, referring to the US president’s vocal criticism of Israel’s initial violations of Trump’s ceasefire announcement.

Pinfold compared the current ceasefire to the situation in Gaza earlier this year, saying Netanyahu repeatedly violated a ceasefire there until it ultimately broke down.

“It is likely that Netanyahu is trying to do exactly what he did with the last Gaza ceasefire – agree to one now to appease the Americans but find an excuse to restart the conflict later,” he said.

Despite Israeli media speculating about Netanyahu’s ambitions for a “regime change” in Iran, Pinfold dismissed the practicality of such intentions.

“I doubt Israel really believes it can cause regime change in Iran. Netanyahu likely knows this despite his bluster,” he said.

According to the expert, Netanyahu’s actions in this regard again mirror his approach in Gaza, characterized by no clear plan for the day after.

The closest the Israelis have to a day-after plan is to “destabilize and cause indefinite chaos,” he added.

Resumption of US-Iran talks uncertain

The recent conflict has cast uncertainty on the potential resumption of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the US.

A recent CNN report said the Trump administration has discussed “helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds – all part of an intensifying attempt to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table.”

However, experts remain skeptical over the likelihood of renewed negotiations.

“The US is pushing for a resumption of talks. Trump’s whole logic for joining Israel’s war and permitting it was in order to get a better deal at the negotiating table,” Pinfold explained.

“Israel will remain opposed to a deal, however, and Iran may not be willing to talk – it has to demonstrate it is strong and resilient, and a nuclear deal on the US terms will be unacceptable.”

Iran’s measured response and next moves

Analyst Krieg noted Tehran’s decision to observe the ceasefire stems from internal considerations, including depleted resources, economic strain, and military weakness.

Iran also recognizes that further escalation risks driving neutral Gulf states closer to the US, he said.

“Iran is opting for measured responses – drone attention on Al Udeid (Air Base), GPS jamming, and threats rather than open-fire salvoes – designed to retain domestic prestige while avoiding total escalation,” Krieg explained.

However, Krieg cautioned that risks remain high as the new leadership of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) “is signaling that the old scripts no longer apply.”

“They’re willing to take bolder leaps to break the predictable tit‑for‑tat cycle and remind their adversaries that deterrence must be recalibrated,” he said.

“That unpredictability raises risks of misstep, misunderstanding and unintended escalation.”

On Iran’s nuclear ambitions, experts believe the conflict could have heightened the urgency to advance its capabilities.

“The only way Iran will give up its program is through a deal with the US that sees sanctions relief,” Pinfold said.

With Iran’s economy “crippled,” the government “feels backed into a corner more than ever after the recent war,” he added.

“The regime may now feel like it needs a nuclear weapon to deter another attack and guarantee its own survival. There’s a reason the US bombed Iran but not North Korea – the latter has a nuclear deterrent.”