Washington: US media outlets have been abuzz with comparisons to historical events, like the fall of the Berlin Wall, as they discuss recent Israeli operations targeting Iran. These narratives often frame Israel as having launched strategic attacks on Iran's leadership and nuclear scientists, amid Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government's actions in Gaza. These narratives often position Israel as a small state confronting a larger, so-called adversary.
According to TRTworld.com, Israel is uniquely equipped in the region, possessing nuclear capabilities and receiving advanced weaponry from the United States. It is also protected by sophisticated American air defenses. Should the US officially enter this conflict, the repercussions could be destabilizing, contrary to some Western expectations. If the US intervenes, Iran's regional allies within its Axis of Resistance, which includes Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, and Iraq's Kataib Hezbollah, may activate to stretch US resources across various fronts.
The conflict, initially a shadow war, is escalating into a multi-domain confrontation with significant risks of regional chaos. While Iran is currently countering Israeli attacks, direct US involvement might lead to Tehran losing ground, suggests Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst. He notes that Israeli strikes appear more effective than Iran's responses but acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding the conflict, particularly given the low likelihood of a US ground invasion and the unpredictable reactions within Iranian society.
Matthew Bryza, a former US diplomat, doubts President Trump would authorize a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, given the American public's aversion to new foreign interventions. He anticipates a more limited operation involving targeted strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, coupled with continued support for Israeli air campaigns. Bryza suggests that destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities could stabilize the Middle East, although nuclear analysts warn that such actions might not significantly delay Iran's nuclear ambitions.
James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that military actions are unlikely to be definitive and cautions against triggering regime change or a popular uprising in Tehran, which could lead to prolonged conflict. Bryza warns that unsuccessful military operations could result in increased tensions, with Iran potentially blocking the Strait of Hormuz or launching hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets.
Wider implications could ensue if Iranian attacks on US military bases prompt deeper US involvement, a scenario Bryza describes as a strategic error with the potential for a full-scale Middle East war. Analyst Krieg concurs, noting that Iran's leadership would likely escalate rather than surrender if faced with an existential threat. He posits that Iran might resort to asymmetric attacks on US forces or Gulf infrastructure.
A conflict with Iran could have global consequences, warns Krieg, including a potential oil shock if Iran attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil supply. Economic disruptions could empower countries like Russia and China, undermining US positions on the global stage. Domestically, Trump's Iran ambitions are causing division within his support base, with some pro-Trump figures questioning the wisdom of engaging in a war with Iran.
Such a conflict could strengthen US rivals and contradict Trump's "America First" vision, pulling the US into another Middle Eastern conflict. Bryza echoes concerns about political backlash from Trump's anti-interventionist supporters, posing a political liability for both Trump and the Republican Party. Despite these concerns, Trump may proceed, believing his base will support him, though a significant public backlash could arise if American casualties occur, cautions Markov.