* The Israel-Iran Conflict & the U.S. Role

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

With Possible Iran-Israel Ceasefire, Trump’s High-Risk Strikes May Pay Off

US President Donald Trump took a gamble by inserting the US into the worsening conflict between Israel and Iran, but it may have paid off --- at least for now.

Trump announced on Tuesday morning that the two countries had agreed to a ceasefire that he said could lead to a lasting peace.

If the American president has ended what he labelled the “12 Day War” it would make for a significant step back from the brink of a conflict that seemed on the verge of engulfing the region.

U.S. Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites

Previously, President Donald Trump said the US carried out a “successful” bombing attack on three nuclear sites in Iran and they have been “obliterated” (BBC, June 22).

Israel says they were in “full co-ordination” with the US in planning the strikes.

Iranian officials have confirmed the facilities were struck but denied it had suffered a major blow.

The strikes mark a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel – it is now one led by the U.S., supported by Israel against Iran.

US Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Operation Midnight Hammer involved 125 US military aircraft including seven B-2 stealth bombers.

Three nuclear facilities were targeted – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan all south of the capital Tehran.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.

He added that the mission “was not, and has not been about regime change.”

Have Israel & Trump Gone TOO Far?

In his latest Washington Post column, CNN-anchor Fareed Zakaria writes: “The Middle East is being reshaped by a fundamental shift in the balance of power: the rise of Israel.”

In his Global Briefing (together with Chris Good), he is of the opinion that Israel’s military successes against Iran have been dramatic, and they follow other significant gains against Iranian proxies.

The Hamas massacres of October 7, 2023, unleashed this new Israeli assertiveness, which has included a devastating war against Hamas in Gaza; the severe degradation of Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon; and by consequence the collapse of Syria’s Assad dictatorship, which was allied with Iran.

As Israel pummels Iran directly, however, Zakaria warns: “One of the dangers of military success is that it often expands the victor’s ambitions .  .  .

“After a stunning initial success in the Korean War, US General Douglas MacArthur decided he would try to unify the two Koreas and moved into the North, triggering a massive Chinese response that bogged down the American forces for years . . . .

“After Afghanistan fell in a matter of weeks in 2001, the Bush administration was emboldened to take the War on Terror to Iraq .  .  .

“Israel’s victories [in Iran] have been extraordinary so far, but they are making the country’s leaders expand their ambitions – with some openly speaking about regime change and assassinating Iran’s supreme leader  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] .  .  .

“They are also emboldening [US President Donald] Trump, who wants to get in on the glory.  . .

“But it is at moments such as this that wise leaders avoid hubris and overreach and instead set clear, achievable goals that can transform military victories into lasting political success.

Netanyahu, Not Trump, Is Calling the Shots

US audiences [and the world at large] were waiting in suspense over Trump’s pending decision whether or not to join Israel’s campaign against Iran. But Trump became impatient.

On the CNN Anderson Cooper 360 show, Zakaria insisted it is Prime Minister Benjamin

Trump had wanted Netanyahu to avoid striking while Trump pursued a new nuclear deal with Iran, Zakaria pointed out.

Netanyahu struck anyway.

Afterward, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement distancing the US from Israel’s operation.

But after it was apparent Israel’s campaign was going well, Trump jumped in to seek a share of the credit and glory, claiming the US had known everything about Israel’s operation beforehand.

The best way to understand Trump’s approach to missing out [It is also an indication of Trump’s vainglorious state of mind].

Zakaria, of course, isn’t the only pundit who sees Netanyahu as the real, determinative actor here.

At the Istituto Affari Internazionali, an Italian international affairs think tank, Riccardo Alcaro writes that Netanyahu seems to have painted Trump into a corner, politically.

“Most likely, Israel’s attack was meant to kill US-Iranian diplomacy for good,” Alcaro writes.

“The targeting of high-ranking Iranian advisor Ali Shamkhani, who oversaw the nuclear negotiation with the Trump Administration, is strong evidence that this was indeed a deliberate goal.  .  .  .

By allowing Israel to strike before the failure of the talks – if Trump indeed knew “everything” about Israel’s plans beforehand – “Trump has once more confirmed the widespread perception of America’s persistent weakness vis-à-vis Israel.  .  .  .

“Most critically [Israel’s campaign] has reduced the room for manoeuvre of the United States, which is now compelled to react to events rather than shape them.”

What Happens Next?

The US has joined the conflict on the side of Israel.

But will Iran’s regime collapse?

Will the war expand to engulf the whole Middle East [and even beyond]?

What will happen next is anyone’s guess, and the Middle East Institute’s Paul Salem writes of a wide variety of possibilities, some more than others.

“The prospects for a diplomatic resolution are rapidly vanishing – if they have not already,” Salem writes.

It’s unlikely that the US would “throw a lifeline” to Iran by reviving nuclear diplomacy, as the Iranian regime “appears to be collapsing under pressure.”

So, if de-escalation isn’t probable, what is?

Iran could escalate by striking US bases in the region or US allies in the Gulf, or by disrupting international shipping [Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman].

But that could incur such an intense backlash that Iran will probably take another course, Salem surmises.

“The more likely option for Iran is to absorb the current military blows and shift to a strategy of weathering the storm,” Salem writes.

“Iran may opt to accept the losses, preserve core regime structures, regroup over time, and pursue longer-term strategies .  .  .

“This trajectory echoes the cases of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria after 2012 .  .  .

“The regime remains in power but severely weakened – unable to project major force, maintain full territorial control or pose strategic threats beyond its borders.”

Give Peace a Chance?

Despite the above analysis of likely next developments, some observers say it’s imperative that the US and other international actors seek peace and pressure Israel to stand down, as it must do itself.

Israel’s campaign against Iran is unjust, Julien Barnes-Dacey, Ellie Geranmayeh and Hugh Lovatt argue at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Israel was not under imminent threat from an Iranian nuclear programme that, for years, has stopped short of crossing the threshold to a bomb, they write.

Aside from the lives being lost in Iran and Israel, there is a serious risk of regional instability and a larger war that draws in more countries.

Iran is clearly vulnerable and cannot win this fight, they write, but Iran also “is not Hizbollah – it is a state actor with far more capability to resist the ongoing onslaught, including to safeguard some nuclear continuity and to inflict unprecedented damage on Israel .  .  .

“Israel’s decision to go to war with Iran risks opening a Pandora’s box by dealing a fatal blow to diplomacy and pushing Iran towards either nuclear weaponisation as its primary security guarantee or towards state collapse .  .  .

“Any further escalation will have serious regional consequences .  .  .

“Even if Israel  [and now the U.S.] succeeds in toppling Iran’s leadership, there is no clear plan for what happens next .  .  .

“As seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, nation-building is a very messy affair .  .  .

“Iran is a multiethnic country of over 90 million people and state failure will certainly have spillover effects, including increased migration flows to Europe.”

War could engulf the region if Iran resorts to attacking US allies or disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Chatham House’s Sanam Vakil writes for Foreign Affairs.

“There is still a narrow window to avoid an all-out war .  .  .

“But with Washington having seemingly cooled to diplomacy, it is up to countries in the region to stop the conflict .  .  .

“Only the Arab states and Turkey, after all, have good working relations with Israel, Iran, and the United States .  .  .

“Now, these countries must come up with de-escalation proposals .  .  .

“Above all, Arab countries fear Israel’s war with Iran.”

.  .  .  or Try to Overthrow the Islamic Regime?

“Without a change of regime by the people of Iran, for the people of Iran, there can be no long-term stability and prosperity there and in the region,” Stanford University Iran expert Abbas Milani writes for Project Syndicate.

Indeed even looking only at Iran’s nuclear programme, many analysts have said the same regime could regather and race toward a bomb after hostilities cease.

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com