Tehran's fire, Tel Aviv's fury: The weaponisation of the Middle East sky

The sky as the primary battlefield

In 2025, the long-simmering tensions between Iran and Israel exploded into overt warfare, recasting the sky as the primary domain of modern military confrontation. This shift has redefined traditional understandings of conflict. No longer confined to trenches or tanks, today's war is airborne—driven by satellite-guided missiles, AI-powered drones, stealth fighters, and cyber capabilities.

Israel's strategic reliance on airpower has been longstanding, but its deployment of the US-manufactured F-35I "Adir" stealth jets has reasserted its regional superiority. These aircraft, with radar-evading abilities and deep-strike precision, have reportedly executed missions targeting Iranian missile factories, suspected nuclear facilities, and command centres. Supported by real-time satellite intelligence and AI-assisted targeting systems, Israeli airstrikes have demonstrated remarkable coordination across multiple domains.

Iran, however, has evolved its countermeasures. Citing The Washington Post (2025), over 600 Iranian drones were launched in retaliatory waves, many targeting Israel's civilian infrastructure and military outposts. These drones, including some reverse-engineered from American and Israeli models, indicate Iran's expanding asymmetric aerial capabilities. Furthermore, Iran's missile arsenal, including variants of the Shahab and Fateh series, has been deployed to test the resilience of Israel's Iron Dome and Arrow-3 defense systems.

Military historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has aptly noted, "Air power does not merely exhibit strength—it projects political will and reshapes perception" (The Guardian, 2020). In this conflict, the sky has become both a theatre of tactics and a canvas of symbolism. The battle over airspace now plays a central role in defining geopolitical narratives.

From shadow games to open skies

Iran and Israel have engaged in proxy conflicts and covert operations for years, ranging from cyber warfare and sabotage to assassinations and militant support. However, 2025 marked a paradigmatic shift: their rivalry became kinetic and unmistakably public.

The chain reaction began with an alleged Israeli airstrike in Damascus that eliminated senior officers of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran's response was immediate and unambiguous coordinated drone strikes and ballistic missile barrages targeted Israeli urban and military assets. Tehran's leaders declared these actions to be in "strategic retaliation" for repeated violations of its sovereignty.

As The New York Times (2025) reported, Israel's Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow-3 missile defence systems were triggered over 300 times in a single week, an operational record. Meanwhile, cyberattacks targeting energy grids, electronic jamming, and satellite imagery manipulation emerged as force multipliers in this new aerial war doctrine. Electronic warfare tools were used to jam Israeli radar, scramble GPS signals, and disrupt military communications.

This was no longer the age of plausible deniability. This was war, automated, algorithmic, and out in the open. The increased automation of strike and defence mechanisms points toward a future where human decision-making may be minimised in favour of computational supremacy. Military AI, predictive analytics, and big data are now embedded at the heart of war planning.

Civilian cost in an aerial age

Despite the technological sophistication, this airborne war has inflicted significant civilian suffering. Though smart weapons promise precision, the fog of war persists. Hospitals, residential complexes, and power facilities have suffered devastating hits sometimes by technical failure, sometimes by flawed intelligence.

Displaced populations in Tehran, Tel Aviv, and even beyond, report near-constant anxiety as drones buzz overhead. Human Rights Watch has demanded investigations into "possible violations of international humanitarian law resulting from disproportionate aerial attacks" (Human Rights Watch Press Release, May 2025).

Refugee flows have increased in urban peripheries. Humanitarian agencies warn of impending public health crises, as displaced communities lack access to clean water and healthcare. The World Health Organization has documented over 300 cases of trauma-induced mental disorders in affected zones, with children being particularly vulnerable.

This new form of warfare, designed to minimise troop losses, has failed to insulate civilian lives. Instead, it has moved war closer to their doorsteps and rooftops. In the name of targeting enemy strongholds, entire neighbourhoods have become collateral landscapes.

Remote warfare and its ethical burden

Modern warfare increasingly allows combatants to strike from thousands of miles away. Drone pilots in climate-controlled rooms manipulate real-time death. Algorithms guide targeting decisions. This remoteness raises a profound ethical dilemma.

If war can be sanitised and made distant, does it become easier to wage and harder to end?

As Professor Mary Kaldor of the London School of Economics observed, "Digital wars may reduce soldier deaths, but they risk making violence more palatable and less accountable" (LSE Public Lecture, 2019). The moral detachment of the operators, coupled with the high-speed delivery of destruction, may weaken the psychological barriers to starting and sustaining war.

For South Asian nations like Bangladesh, currently modernising its border surveillance and drone fleet, the West Asian conflict offers critical ethical lessons. Military innovation must be paired with international law literacy and strong institutional oversight. The use of drones for security must remain anchored in constitutional safeguards and rights-based frameworks.

South Asia's indirect exposure

Though geographically removed, South Asia cannot remain unaffected by the Israel–Iran conflict. The region's economic and energy interests are deeply intertwined with the Gulf. Millions of migrant workers from Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan live across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Any escalation threatens their safety and remittance flows.

Additionally, South Asia's defence postures are being reshaped by technological spillovers. India's procurement of drones from Israel, Pakistan's drone cooperation with Turkey, and Bangladesh's focus on aerial surveillance all reflect this trend.

In diplomatic terms, the polarization of global power blocs led by the US and China—further complicates South Asia's balancing act. As American and Chinese military technology influences both sides of the Iran-Israel conflict, the region faces growing pressure to choose sides or remain strategically ambiguous.

For Bangladesh, the challenge lies in balancing its strong ties with Gulf states and Iran while maintaining neutrality on regional conflicts. Dhaka's tradition of peace diplomacy can be leveraged to advocate de-escalation through regional forums like the OIC and UN General Assembly.

Conclusion: Warfare beyond borders

The Iran–Israel war of 2025 serves as a watershed moment in the evolution of global conflict. The battlefield has risen into the sky, bringing with it new challenges: technical, strategic, legal, and humanitarian. It also redefines the thresholds for engagement, what was once covert is now overt, and what was once distant is now dangerously near.

For Bangladesh, the lesson is not one of military imitation but reflective preparation. As it aspires to be a responsible global actor and regional stabiliser, it must prioritise three pillars: strategic foresight, ethical military modernisation, and diplomatic agility.

Bangladesh's foreign policy, shaped by non-alignment and respect for international law, is well-positioned to ask the hard questions:

• What constitutes a justified airstrike in the age of AI?
• How do we ensure that modern arsenals are accountable to humanitarian norms?
• Can smaller nations shape global rules in the face of military automation?

The answers will define not just future wars, but future peace. As the sky turns into the most contested arena of the 21st century, it is no longer enough to observe—we must engage with insight, integrity, and intent.

The author is a faculty member in the Department of International Relations at Jahangirnagar University. He can be reached at fazlul@juniv.edu