Muslim World Report

Iran's Alleged Use of Cluster Munitions Raises Regional Tensions

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 20, 2025 11:05 AM | 10 min read | 2078 words

TL;DR: Iran’s alleged use of cluster munitions against Israel raises significant humanitarian and geopolitical concerns, increasing the risk of broader regional conflict. This situation necessitates urgent international attention and strategies for de-escalation.

The Situation

Recent reports allege that Iran has deployed cluster munitions against Israel, signaling a concerning escalation in an already volatile region. This action raises critical ethical and legal questions surrounding warfare tactics, particularly regarding the use of indiscriminate weapons that disproportionately impact civilians.

Cluster munitions are designed to release multiple smaller bombs over a wide area, creating a substantial risk of unintended civilian casualties. They often leave unexploded ordnance that continues to harm innocent people long after conflicts have concluded (Itzkowitz Shifrinson & Priebe, 2011). While neither Iran nor Israel is a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions that prohibits their use, the international community remains vigilant about the implications of such actions.

The implications of Iran’s alleged use of cluster munitions extend far beyond immediate violence; they threaten to provoke a larger military confrontation between Iran and Israel. Such an escalation could spiral into a broader regional conflict, drawing in various state and non-state actors, and complicating an already intricate geopolitical landscape characterized by:

  • Centuries of colonial legacies
  • Ongoing imperialist agendas, particularly those led by Western powers (Tarak Barkawi & Mark Laffey, 2006)

The history of warfare in the Middle East illustrates the cyclic nature of violence, where actions taken under the pretext of self-defense often exacerbate tensions and lead to further retaliation (Heinze & Neilsen, 2020). Iran’s alleged deployment of cluster munitions could embolden other actors in the region to consider similar tactics justifiable under the guise of military necessity, raising pressing concerns about the implications for international humanitarian law and the responsibilities of states that choose to ignore established treaties.

The ethical challenges posed by cluster munitions are not merely contemporary issues but resonate with historical legacies of warfare that have left profound scars on civilian populations. The Vietnam conflict, for instance, exemplifies the lingering dangers of such weapons, as unexploded ordnance continues to inflict pain and suffering on innocent civilians decades later (McGoldrick, 2015). The failure to adequately address these humanitarian crises illustrates a broader systemic issue where the focus on military solutions overshadows efforts to engage with the socio-political grievances that fuel violence and unrest (Gill, 2020).

The anticipated escalation of military confrontations between Iran and Israel raises the specter of a multi-dimensional conflict involving regional allies and global powers, such as the United States and Russia. The U.S. has historically supported Israel’s right to self-defense while maintaining a complex relationship with Iran. An escalation could work against Iran’s strategic objectives, potentially unifying its adversaries and reinforcing the military narratives of its opponents while isolating Iran on the international stage (Fox, 2004). The cycle of violence could intensify as each side justifies its actions in response to perceived threats, creating an environment where retaliation becomes more common than diplomatic resolution.

The international community must grapple with the reality that an escalation in military actions could lead to retaliatory measures from Israel, likely involving airstrikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure. Such a response may yield short-term tactical advantages but risks significant long-term consequences, such as:

  • Galvanizing public support for Iran among its allies and sympathetic populations
  • Framing the conflict as a broader struggle against foreign aggression (Zarzaur et al., 2020)

This could foster a narrative that nurtures further violence rather than promoting peace.

As we analyze this precarious situation, it is vital to consider the potential scenarios that could unfold, examining their implications on a broader scale. In this regard, it is essential to ask:

What If Iran Escalates Its Military Actions?

Should Iran decide to escalate its military operations beyond the use of cluster munitions, the consequences could be dire. An expanded military campaign targeting Israel or extending offensives to other nations perceived as adversaries could ignite a regional conflagration. Iran would likely leverage its influence among allied groups across the region, including:

  • Hezbollah in Lebanon
  • Various militias in Iraq and Syria

The ramifications of such escalation would extend beyond immediate violence, potentially altering the regional balance of power and undermining existing alliances.

An aggressive stance from Iran would likely provoke a robust response from Israel, which has a well-equipped military infrastructure designed to counter such threats. A full-scale war could ensue, employing advanced military technologies and tactics that could result in unprecedented civilian casualties. The humanitarian cost of such conflict would be staggering, with estimates of casualties and displacements potentially reaching into the millions, exacerbating existing crises and creating new ones.

Furthermore, the regional allies of Israel, including the United States, could become more directly involved, raising the stakes for a broader conflict that might draw in global powers. The consequences of U.S. involvement could be particularly profound, given its historical role in shaping Middle Eastern politics and its military engagements in the region. This reaction could isolate Iran on the international stage, complicating any prospects for diplomatic resolution.

In contemplating these potential developments, it becomes evident that an escalation of military actions by Iran would likely lead to a chaotic environment characterized by:

  • Increased casualties
  • International condemnation
  • The potential for prolonged regional instability

The transformative implications of such actions necessitate careful consideration by all involved parties, emphasizing the urgent need for restraint and dialogue over militaristic responses.

What If Israel Retaliates with Increased Force?

If Israel opts to retaliate against Iran’s alleged use of cluster munitions with increased military force, we may witness a rapid escalation of violence that could destabilize not only the Israel-Iran dynamic but the entire Middle East. Such a response would likely include airstrikes targeting Iranian missile sites, military bases, and logistical supply routes, significantly degrading Iranian military capabilities in the short term.

However, while an aggressive retaliation may yield immediate tactical advantages for Israel, it risks significant long-term consequences. Any military action could reignite complex sectarian and nationalist sentiments throughout the region, galvanizing public support for Iran and framing its actions as part of a broader struggle against foreign aggression. This development may bolster Iran’s standing among its regional allies and enhance its influence among populations sympathetic to its cause.

Moreover, an expanded military confrontation could lead to substantial civilian casualties, prompting international outcry and calls for accountability that could further complicate Israel’s relationship with its allies, including the U.S. The potential for civilian backlash against military operations could undermine Israel’s moral standing in the court of international opinion, particularly given the heightened scrutiny of warfare ethics in the 21st century.

Both sides thus face the daunting prospect of being trapped in an escalating cycle of violence, where each retaliatory strike necessitates further responses. The regional implications of such a scenario could include heightened tensions among neighboring countries, who may feel pressured to choose sides, ultimately threatening broader geopolitical stability.

In summary, while a retaliatory increase in force by Israel may seem justifiable within a military strategy framework, the profound consequences that could stem from such actions necessitate a thorough reassessment of existing approaches. The focus on military solutions often overshadows the need for engaging with the socio-political grievances that fuel unrest and violence.

What If International Powers Intervene?

The possibility of international powers intervening in the conflict remains a critical factor in understanding the broader implications of Iran’s deployment of cluster munitions. Should powers like the United States, European nations, or Russia decide to intervene—whether militarily, politically, or through economic sanctions—the dynamics of the conflict would shift dramatically.

Western nations, particularly the U.S., might be inclined to support Israel’s right to self-defense, leading to enhanced military aid, intelligence sharing, and even pre-emptive strikes aimed at Iranian interests. Such support would:

  • Deepen the rift between Iran and Israel
  • Unify Iran’s adversaries
  • Galvanize regional opposition against perceived imperialist interventions

Conversely, if international actors opposing U.S. hegemony decide to back Iran, we could observe a realignment of regional alliances. This support might manifest in military supplies, financing, or even direct military involvement. An increased Iranian capacity could lead to the establishment of new coalitions that challenge established power dynamics in the region, potentially destabilizing neighboring countries and extending the conflict.

Further complicating this scenario is the potential for increased sanctions or diplomatic isolation aimed at Iran. This would not only affect its military capabilities but also exacerbate humanitarian crises within its borders, potentially unifying the Iranian populace against perceived external threats and enhancing domestic support for the government.

The intervention of international powers could have transformative implications for the conflict. While it might provide immediate benefits to one party, the long-term ramifications could lead to further instability and conflict within the region. Instead of exacerbating tensions through military involvement, a more prudent course of action would entail diplomatic engagement aimed at a negotiated settlement.

Strategic Maneuvers for De-Escalation

As this critical situation unfolds, it is essential for all parties involved—Iran, Israel, and surrounding nations—to engage in strategic maneuvers that promote de-escalation and constructive dialogue rather than militaristic posturing.

For Iran, a crucial step would involve:

  • Publicly affirming its commitment to humanitarian law
  • Advocating for an immediate ceasefire

By emphasizing its willingness to engage in diplomatic discussions, Iran could position itself as a responsible actor on the international stage, countering accusations of recklessness in its military tactics. Moreover, fostering open channels of communication with regional allies could reduce the likelihood of miscalculations or unilateral actions that trigger larger conflicts.

Israel must balance its security concerns with its responsibilities under international law. While the right to self-defense is recognized, Israel’s strategic objective should be to:

  • Minimize civilian casualties
  • Seek avenues for diplomatic engagement

In doing so, it could work collaboratively with international partners to create a dialogue focused on peace, security, and the cessation of hostilities. Engaging in backchannel negotiations, particularly with influential nations such as Russia or Turkey, may facilitate pathways for dialogue that bypass entrenched positions.

International actors, particularly Western nations, must exercise caution in their approach to this conflict. Rather than choosing sides or escalating tensions through military support, they should work towards brokering a peace agreement. This entails advocating for a regional summit where all parties can present their concerns and address underlying grievances. Economic incentives for disarmament, coupled with sustained humanitarian aid to affected populations, would create a conducive environment for negotiation.

Moreover, civil society organizations and grassroots movements across the region should mobilize to foster dialogue and promote understanding among communities. By emphasizing shared humanitarian concerns, these organizations can build bridges across divides and galvanize public support for peaceful resolutions.

The necessity of a robust international response to de-escalate tensions cannot be overstated. Multilateral diplomacy and humanitarian interventions must be prioritized to create a platform for dialogue that facilitates long-lasting peace. The involvement of influential actors in the international arena could help mitigate conflict dynamics and encourage a return to negotiations.

Ultimately, the precariousness of the situation demands an urgent reassessment of strategies by all parties involved. A focus on military solutions risks deepening divides and prolonging suffering. By embracing diplomatic engagement and fostering an environment of cooperation, there may still be opportunities to avert catastrophic outcomes and lay the groundwork for a more stable and peaceful future.

References

  • Fox, J. (2004). The rise of religious nationalism and conflict: Ethnic conflict and revolutionary wars, 1945-2001. Journal of Peace Research, 41(4), 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304047434
  • Gill, A. S. (2020). The changing role of multilateral forums in regulating armed conflict in the digital age. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(914), 217-256. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383121000059
  • Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., Webster, S., Cameron-Blake, E., Hallas, L., Majumdar, S., & Tatlow, H. (2021). A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nature Human Behaviour, 5(4), 529-538. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8
  • Itzkowitz Shifrinson, J. R., & Priebe, M. (2011). A crude threat: The limits of an Iranian missile campaign against Saudi Arabian oil. International Security, 36(2), 149-180. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00048
  • McGoldrick, C. (2015). The state of conflicts today: Can humanitarian action adapt? International Review of the Red Cross, 97(897), 751-774. https://doi.org/10.1017/s181638311600028x
  • Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems, 21(3), 24-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/37.969131
  • Tarak Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M. (2006). The postcolonial moment in security studies. Review of International Studies, 32(3), 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210506007054
  • Zarzaur, B. L., Stahl, C. C., Greenberg, J. A., Savage, S. A., Minter, R. M. (2020). Blueprint for restructuring a department of surgery in concert with the health care system during a pandemic. JAMA Surgery, 155(6), 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1386
← Prev