Even after the United States military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is still premature to envision an end to the conflict between Iran and Israel. Moving forward, two key factors are likely to determine the direction and trajectory of the ongoing war: firstly, the scale and nature of Iran’s response, including its options to pursue the path of diplomacy; secondly, intelligence reports concerning the extent of the damage inflicted on Tehran’s nuclear program.

The US administration, through diplomatic channels of some Arab countries, has sent a clear message to Tehran: the US planned the strikes alone and that there are no intentions to carry out further strikes. Additionally, Washington does not seek regime change in Iran. The US message is a deliberate attempt for de-escalation to avoid a descent into full-scale regional war.

Washington fully comprehends that a full-blown war or an attempt to topple the Iranian regime would be a reckless move. Such a move can drag the entire region into chaos with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for both regional and global security. This realization most likely is the main reason behind Washington’s swift diplomatic outreach to Tehran, reassuring it that the strikes are not a declaration of war nor are they part of a broader plan to topple the regime.

Escalating toward a full-blown war or attempting to topple the Iranian regime can drag the entire region into chaos with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for both regional and global security.

In the aftermath of the strikes, the US president was quick to reiterate the need to return to negotiations and end hostilities. His insistence on dialogue has remained consistent with his persona of a dealmaker and crisis-solver. He has pursued the same approach with regards to the war in Ukraine as well. Of late, as a symbolic move reflecting his persona, he also attributed the easing of Pakistan-India tensions to himself.

The American president is fully aware that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions could inadvertently push the region into the trap of an open war. Therefore, the administration has been proactive to assure Tehran that the regime is safe and there are no plans for further strikes. 

There is a growing agreement in policy circles that Netanyahu now believes that he has a unique opportunity to reshape the Middle East in ways that serve Israeli strategic interests. Netanyahu seems convinced of his ability to quash all future threats to Israel and changing the Middle East to serve Israeli interests. Netanyahu’s resolve has emboldened since taking out the top brass of Hezbollah (Iran’s principal proxy in the region) and Hamas in Gaza along with the fall of the Syrian regime. The Israeli prime minister has dealt a powerful blow to the Iranian regime with targeted killings of the majority of Iranian military leadership and a group of senior nuclear scientists along with the Israeli Air Force violating Iranian airspace with apparent impunity. 

With the US military strikes on Iran, Netanyahu may want to seize this moment considering it as his best chance to bury the “Axis of Resistance” forever and redraw the strategic map of the Middle East.

This sense of triumph aligns perfectly with President Donald Trump’s persona, craving the portrayal of a victor and leader of the world’s most powerful nation. However, the US president is prudent to avert being drawn into the unfolding dynamics initiated by Netanyahu. After receiving confirmation from the Iranian side that the regime is at its weakest and unable to sustain the ongoing confrontation, Trump would ensure that Netanyahu does not monopolize the victory alone.

As of now, Tehran appears to be engaging in a calculated and controlled escalation, mostly to uphold its prestige and strategic posture. It is treading cautiously so as not to slip into a trap of an open war that Netanyahu seeks. The Iranian regime’s vulnerability is no longer undeniable. Israeli military and intelligence strike along with US strikes on its nuclear assets have dealt serious blows to the regime’s foundation. Nonetheless, it still holds several cards close to its heart, particularly the mobilization of its regional proxies and the issuance of religious edicts — fatwas, a historically powerful tool in the hands of the Supreme Leader since long.

Realizing that a full-scale war or regime change would be reckless, Washington swiftly reached out to Tehran to reassure that the strikes were neither a declaration of war nor part of a broader plan.

Netanyahu, however, is pursuing a dubious policy that goes beyond the strategy of preemptive deterrence and resembles a more wary design of strategic overreach. Given Israel’s military superiority and the backseat the international community is taking on the war, Netanyahu appears to be in a position that he can exploit to implement his own plans and agenda under the pretext of changing the face of the Middle East. However, this approach poses dire risks: the wider the fronts, the less control over them, and the greater the sense of power, the closer the regime nears its threshold of strategic vulnerability.

In this context, it would be wise to seriously consider the predicament in which everyone slips into an open war and becomes trapped in it. 

Netanyahu’s relentless pounding and pouncing against the Iranian regime, especially by going against US position of not targeting the Supreme Leader or attempting a regime change, could push Tehran to abandon its policy of calculated escalation and force its hand to a deadly open confrontation. A shift to open confrontation, particularly if the Iranian regime’s backbone is endangered, could ignite a regional conflagration that would be unable to contain.

With Iran too, Israel seems to be repeating the same tactics it employed in Gaza nearly two years ago. There seems to be no clearly defined endgame or a post-war vision. This is reminiscent of the US invasion of Iraq, where there was no serious planning for the post-Saddam era. The result has been decades of chaos and destruction in Iraq, transmuting the country into Iran’s backyard, a fertile ground for sectarian militias aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. 

From Gaza to Lebanon to Iran, Netanyahu’s policy appears lacking a coherent long-term strategy. It is unclear whether he fully comprehends what he is trying to achieve, or when and where he should stop. This strategic ambiguity only serves to deepen existing crises and generate new, potentially more dangerous, conflicts.

It is clear that the US president and his administration are doing their best to prevent everyone from sliding into the trap of an open war. Arab states close to the Trump administration and other countries in the region are also working towards this very end. Yet no one can predict Netanyahu’s next move. He may touch the most sensitive nerve centers of the Iranian regime, forcing it to play all its remaining cards without any restraint. 

If a regime realizes that it is bound to be doomed, it will not hesitate to burn everyone and everything with it. This belief also applies to the character of President Trump, who seeks to establish himself as one of the most prominent American presidents, capable of running the world as per his vision and agenda. In the midst of this unfolding crisis, war — as history teaches us — becomes the enemy of reason. Every side will have its own version of how the conflict began, but no one can say how it will end, or where it will lead. 

Thus, the region currently resembles a chess board, and the game is being played by the rules of deterrence and detonation. One wrong move could lead to catastrophic regional chaos, marking the point of no return. Despite all this, the question remains: Does Tehran have an alternative other than full-scale escalation? Can regional countries put in place a containment measure before the first piece falls from the chessboard? The scenarios are numerous, and events are evolving. I do not think anyone knows exactly where all are headed.

“Netanyahu may target the Iranian regime’s most critical leadership structures, triggering an unrestrained retaliation.”