From a strategic standpoint, Israel’s recent attack on Iran marks a critical phase in the broader plan long championed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aimed at reshaping the political landscape of the Middle East. With Gaza devastated, Hezbollah weakened, and the Syrian regime gone, Iran remains the final obstacle in what Netanyahu has repeatedly framed as a struggle against a many-armed adversary—its limbs now severed, its head within reach.
Yet Israel’s operations in the region are not being conducted in isolation. The ongoing assaults and wars launched by Israel across the region affirm a persistent reality: Israel acts with unrestrained military aggression because it is emboldened by unwavering Western support. The United States and its allies have provided Israel not only with advanced weaponry and intelligence but also with open-ended political cover, granting it freedom to operate across the region without fear of sanctions, scrutiny, or meaningful diplomatic consequences. For nearly six decades, Israel has maintained its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza through shifting tools—constructing some, dismantling others—to prolong its control. Three decades on the foundational premise of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which sought a two-state solution based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 within five years, not only failed to materialise but is increasingly improbable due to the realities imposed by Israeli policies.
This, in spite of the fact that the two-state solution remains the official position of the global community, led by Western powers that once championed the Oslo framework. Ironically, these same governments have stood by as Israel systematically undermined the agreement—suppressing any form of Palestinian resistance to its occupation, regardless of its nature. The result has been the transformation of the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly Gaza, into arenas of destruction. The recent war has endangered over two million residents and obliterated much of Gaza’s infrastructure, which holds deep historical and cultural roots. Despite decades of violations and repeated aggressions against neighbouring states, Israel has never been held accountable. Today, Israel continues with its assault on Iran, this time with direct American and European military and intelligence backing, wielding technologies no other regional power possesses.
Neither the United States nor other major Western powers—most notably the United Kingdom and France—has condemned Israel’s recent assault on Iran, which began last Friday. On the contrary, they have echoed Israel’s justification that it is acting in “self-defense,” despite the fact that it initiated the attack against a nation more than 2,300 kilometers away. Western governments claim that their military and intelligence support is defensive in nature—intended to neutralise potential Iranian retaliation. But this is disingenuous. The same offensive weaponry used by Israel originates in the West, under a framework of shared intelligence. While these governments claim noninvolvement in Israel’s airstrikes, their active role in intercepting Iranian missiles fired in response constitutes a direct intervention on Israel’s behalf. Moreover, the deployment of American refueling aircraft to support Israeli fighter jets during their operations highlights the extent of Western complicity in the attacks.
Despite such full-spectrum support, the United States and its allies do not appear eager to initiate a direct military confrontation with Iran. In fact, Washington has consistently resisted such escalation. The 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the Obama administration signalled a commitment to diplomacy. Even the Trump administration — often portrayed as belligerent — refrained from launching a war against Iran, and instead staffed key positions with figures who favored restraint. Trump himself engaged in diplomatic outreach as recently as last April, seeking to revive dialogue over Iran’s nuclear file in a move Netanyahu openly opposed.
Netanyahu, by contrast, has long championed military action against Iran. For years, he has sought to persuade the US administrations to join him in this endeavor. His relationship with President Obama soured over the nuclear deal, and while Trump withdrew from the agreement, even he resisted entering a broader war. President Biden has also been wary of Netanyahu’s attempts to drag the US into conflict, recognising such a war is not in Washington’s interest. Netanyahu’s animosity towards Iran’s nuclear program dates back to the 1990s, long before he rose to power. In coordination with the United States, Israel has since 2010 conducted cyber attacks, sabotaged nuclear facilities, assassinated military leaders and scientists and been involved in covert maritime operations. Since 2013, Israel has also conducted airstrikes against Iranian positions in Syria, in an effort to curtail Tehran’s influence in the region.
Today, Netanyahu no longer hides his true objective. His goal is not limited to neutralising Iran’s nuclear program. It is the dismantling of the Iranian regime itself. Israel’s strategy now mirrors US campaigns in Iraq and Libya, which aimed to collapse state institutions in order to reshape the regional order. Netanyahu has openly called on the Iranian people to rise against the regime, and Israel’s initial strike targeted figures at the top of Iran’s military hierarchy, as well as key nuclear scientists. Along parallel lines, it attacked vital economic infrastructure and state media, with some Israeli rhetoric even suggesting the possibility of targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader.
What is more striking is the American demand that Iran “surrender” and return to nuclear negotiations despite not being the aggressor in this conflict. This demand comes only days after the fifth round of nuclear talks, during which Iran was widely seen as adopting a flexible and conciliatory posture. Two days before the sixth round was scheduled to begin, Israel launched its attack, derailing diplomatic momentum. Now, Netanyahu openly calls for full US involvement to secure victory against Iran with minimal Israeli losses — even if it risks America’s own strategic interests across a region where it maintains military bases and deep economic interests.
Washington’s early warnings to Iran not to target American assets in the region, and its threats to join the conflict if those interests are harmed, reflect a deep awareness of these vulnerabilities. The United States appears to recognize that open war would jeopardise its relations with key regional players, not to mention the growing presence of global competitors like China and Russia.
In contrast, the collective Arab response has been clear: all Arab states, including those that have normalised relations with Israel, have condemned the attack on Iran as a breach of sovereignty and have called for a peaceful resolution. This unified Arab stance disrupts the regional order the US has tried to craft over the past two decades, predicated on an Arab-Israeli-American axis to confront Iran. Today, key Arab nations — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE — have signalled the desire to prioritise economic development and regional stability over conflict. In recent years, they have repaired diplomatic ties with Iran and expanded partnerships with global powers like China and Russia, diminishing the singular dominance of the United States in the region.
The war on Gaza, followed by the strike on Iran, has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Israel has become a destabilising force, willing to use overwhelming power against neighboring states with impunity. And the West, rather than tempering these impulses, has become an enabler. As former US advisor John Miller recently noted, Netanyahu is now willing to use force without restraint — unlike in the past, when he was more cautious. Since forming a far-right government in late 2022, Netanyahu has imposed repressive policies in the West Bank and launched a devastating war on Gaza. This government has shown itself to be brutal, ideologically driven, and unashamed in its pursuit of a so-called “new Middle East” defined by Israeli supremacy.
The war on Gaza has helped Netanyahu cling to power, even as previous Israeli governments fell in quick succession in recent years. Despite facing multiple corruption charges and internal discord within his coalition, Netanyahu’s war footing has insulated him politically. Even his rivals in the opposition have supported his military agenda. It is clear that so long as Netanyahu sees war as a path to political survival and regional dominance, his government will continue to escalate.
But this path is not without consequence. As Miller warned, Netanyahu’s increasingly reckless use of military force may not yield the results he seeks — not in the short term, and certainly not in the long run. Israel’s attack on Iran may ignite a broader conflagration involving actors far beyond the region. Unlike Gaza, where intervention is limited by geography and political caution, Iran is a regional power with global partnerships. China and Russia have already voiced concerns and called for de-escalation. Other international actors have urged a return to diplomacy. Even the US, despite its role in enabling the conflict, has stopped short of full military engagement, fearful of the regional blowback.
Iran is unlikely to collapse. With its size, population and deep cultural resilience, it has the capacity to endure. Israel, by contrast, relies heavily on its military edge and Western support. The question, then, is this: will the United States and its allies risk destabilising the entire Middle East, sacrificing their own interests, to realise Israel’s ambitions? Will global powers like China and Russia stand by and allow Iran’s defeat to upend regional balances? Will key Arab states remain neutral, despite having the most to lose? And is Iran already preparing for a second strike, should Western powers opt for a crippling blow?
The writer is a professor of political science and international relations at the Arab-American University in Palestine.
Short link: