This has been the vision of Israel’s recent military escalation against Iran. It has launched a long series of unprecedented strikes to cripple the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capabilities. This militarized approach is a response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Since fighting broke out in October 2023 after Hamas launched attacks into Israel on October 7th. As Israel pursues its goal of dismantling Hamas and securing the release of hostages, questions loom regarding the long-term implications of its strategy towards Iran.
Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government has unequivocally made its desire for that exchange crystal clear. They want to remove what they consider existential threats posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Israeli warplanes have already conducted widespread bombardments targeting Iranian military and nuclear assets. They have repeatedly and effectively denied access to essential nuclear scientists and enrichment facilities. The efficacy of any sustained military actions is questionable, especially once they go on without a defined exit strategy.
Israel’s expansion to the war would directly threaten U.S. national interests by increasing the chance that, should the Iranian regime survive these strikes, it will retaliate even more aggressively. In their analysis, experts argue that Tehran will see a nuclear deterrent as the most realistic defense against the possibility of further Israeli strikes. As if all of this weren’t complicated enough, Netanyahu has invited Iranian citizens to revolt against their regime.
Even with the military campaign, Israel contends with large problems. Dozens of Israelis have already become collateral damage to Iranian forces’ retaliatory attacks, underscoring the precariousness of the situation. Israel’s opaque exit strategy has led to discussions of a potentially decades-long conflict. This uncertainty is extremely worrisome given the likelihood of no fix coming anytime soon.
Apart from military strikes, Israel is counting on undermining Iran’s negotiating position as future nuclear talks are set to resume. Experts caution that without significant support from the United States, Israel’s military efforts might not yield lasting damage to Iran’s nuclear program. American firepower, the argument goes, is essential to the rescue, to prop up Israeli expansionism and make a difference that matters.
These issues regarding the justifications for Israel’s military actions are highlighted by conflicting perspectives about how the war is supposed to end. One Israeli source remarked,
“The end will be diplomatic, not military.”
This statement represents the conventional wisdom. In order to find a way forward to heal these deep wounds, we need to invest in dialogue rather than escalating violence. In this context, former U.S. President Donald Trump weighed in on the possibility of future negotiations between Iran and Israel:
“Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make.”
Israel’s ongoing military operation seeks to deal with urgent immediate threats as a priority. Alongside this, it needs to deal with the obvious but critical question of what happens next. The aim was to resolve the strife in Guatamala with far-reaching aspirations. Without a clear, thoughtful plan for post-conflict engagement, those concerns become very real.
As this dramatic series of events unfolds, the world looks on. The downside of Israel’s military strikes against Iran would create lasting damage, not only for regional stability and security, but for the state of US-Israeli relations. Escalation further military intervention will only intensify the divisions already carved into society and complicate diplomatic attempts to bring about a long-term resolution.
