On the looming American–Israeli strike against Iran |
The region is going through a period of visible tension, marked by growing anxiety over the possibility of sliding into yet another war. This comes at a time when it has yet to regain its balance after more than two years of devastating, multi-front conflicts. In recent days, official Israeli statements have increasingly pointed toward the likelihood of a renewed confrontation with Iran, justifying this stance by insisting that Tehran must not be allowed to continue building up its ballistic missile arsenal. Against this backdrop, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited US President Donald Trump on 29th December, seeking to press him toward launching a strike. Following the latest conflict, the scope of joint American-Israeli demands on Tehran has expanded significantly. These demands now go beyond previous thresholds to include the dismantling of Iran’s ballistic missile program and a complete halt to all forms of support for proxy militias across the region, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This comes as the White House convened meetings to examine additional offensive options against Iran, including intensifying economic pressure on the government, carrying out cyber operations, and stoking overt protests with the aim of toppling the regime. Within this escalatory context, President Trump signalled his readiness to support anti-government demonstrators in Iran, declaring that the era of negotiations with Tehran had come to an end. Iran, for its part, accuses the United States and Israel of exploiting the protests to fuel escalation against it, viewing these moves as an extension of the so-called “Twelve-Day War.” Tehran insists it is fully prepared to deter any attack on the country’s sovereignty or stability.
Washington, meanwhile, favours engineering a transformation of Iran’s political system through means short of direct military intervention, which it continues to treat as a last resort. Sceptics of a direct strike argue that such restraint is intended to avoid a repeat of the public rifts that preceded the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites last June, an episode that deepened divisions among Trump’s own supporters over the wisdom of wading into yet another Middle Eastern conflict and over what his “America First” slogan truly entails. This helps explain Washington’s efforts to undermine the Iranian system without becoming entangled in a full-scale military war. On Monday, Trump imposed 25 per cent tariffs on countries that maintain trade relations with Iran, presenting economic coercion as a way to sidestep a broader military confrontation.
This approach unfolds amid a more sober awareness across the region of the dangers inherent in US policy toward Iran, whether through an outright military strike against the Iranian state or attempts to engineer regime change by inflaming protests. Gulf states, in particular, are working to bolster the option of negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Their concern is that the collapse of the Iranian government could trigger civil war, produce a failed state, or empower hardline factions. Given Iran’s substantial military capabilities, such outcomes........