5 min readJun 18, 2025 01:55 PM IST
First published on: Jun 18, 2025 at 01:54 PM IST
Israeli attacks on Iran continue unabated. The goal is no longer confined to destroying nuclear facilities, as military installations, oil and gas fields, manufacturing facilities, and police stations have been attacked. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is ostensibly working on a grand strategy of incapacitating Iran’s military and economic capabilities and toppling the Ayatollah’s regime. He appears convinced that the theocratic regime will crumble with extensive devastation and the consequent misery. In a recent speech, he exhorted the “brave people” of Iran to abandon the regime responsible for their distress.
The Trump administration may welcome the fall of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but is sceptical of Israel’s capacity to achieve it. Considering its geographical, military, and resource limitations, Israel can never accomplish it alone. The physical distance between Iran and Israel is about 1,300–1,500 km, with Syria, Jordan and Iraq located between them. The buffer states will not allow Israel’s artillery and tank movements through their territories. Israel, therefore, cannot send ground forces to Iran. Moreover, no regime has ever changed with missiles fired from more than a thousand miles away. Israel may be expecting the United States’ participation at a later stage. If the war widens, the US is bound to get involved.
Washington fears its entrapment. Having burnt its fingers in previous West Asian conflicts, the US is reluctant to get entangled again. The Trump administration is willing to provide military and logistical assistance to Israel, but it will resist direct participation. This is not a conflict that it initiated.
Further, there is no consensus among US citizens on Israeli action against Iran. A large section of Democrats and some Republicans prefer an isolationist and hands-off approach. Strategic thinkers fear the fate of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, where large-scale destruction and regime change did not lead to governments favourable to the US. Radical and extremist elements filled the vacuum created by the fall of the old regime.
Therefore, while the US remains steadfast in its support of Israel, it is likely to refrain from direct participation. In its official statements, the US has distanced itself from Israel’s military action, calling it a unilateral action. This policy might change if Iran succeeds in causing severe damage to Israel, or more importantly, targets US military infrastructure in West Asia.
To a large extent, the US involvement is contingent upon the way the conflict unfolds in the coming days. Until now, Iran has refrained from targeting US military installations in West Asia, fearing a joint US-Israeli military retaliation. In the past, Iran’s proxy networks in Iraq and Yemen have struck American military bases in Jordan, Syria and the Persian Gulf. If such a situation arises again, the US would likely retaliate with full force at its disposal. That would strengthen Israel’s position, and a joint military action could overwhelm Iran’s security.
In earlier statements, Iran had threatened to attack US personnel and bases in the event of Israeli military action. Khamenei would do well to avoid targeting US infrastructure to ensure there is no retaliation by the US, even though Trump posted on social media that he knows where Khamenei is “hiding” and the US will not “take him out for now”. Khamenei is facing an existential crisis because Netanyahu has not ruled out the possibility of a direct attack on Iran’s political and religious leadership.
Trump still believes that a deal is possible, even though Iran has withdrawn from the Oman-mediated negotiations. He projects himself as a master deal-maker and is keen to carry that reputation forward. But none of his deals have succeeded, aside from his exaggerated claims on India and Pakistan. He is better characterised as a deal-breaker rather than a deal-maker. He has broken too many deals on trade, tariffs, health and climate change.
The present volatile situation in West Asia would not have occurred had he preserved the Obama administration’s US-Iran nuclear deal. Instead of revising that, he outright abandoned it during his first term.
In any case, what we are witnessing is a culmination of longstanding tensions between Israel and Iran. Netanyahu’s implicit strategy is to push for a regime change by debilitating Iran’s economic and military capabilities. This strategy anticipates Washington’s direct involvement at some stage. Trump’s policies have certainly emboldened Netanyahu, but whether Washington will become directly involved in the war remains to be seen.
The writer teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Views are personal
IIn any case, what we are witnessing is a culmination of longstanding tensions between Israel and Iran (AP) 
Share
