After feeling emboldened by the attack against Venezuela in early January, capturing its president and his wife in a daring, highly advanced military operation, US President Donald Trump unexpectedly decided to escalate the confrontation against Iran, sending armadas of aircraft carriers, advanced warships and stealth fighter jets to the region.
The original aim of renewed US threats against Iran was to support the demonstrators who took to the streets in huge numbers a few weeks ago to protest deteriorating economic conditions, warning the authorities there against killing peaceful protesters and openly backing regime change. However, after the protests subsided and the regime managed to contain the situation, US threats went back to the theme of Iran’s nuclear programme, which Trump had used to justify last June’s attack on Iran: to terminate the programme, curtail Iran’s missile capabilities, and end its backing of anti-Israel militias in the region.
Ironically, Trump had insisted in nearly daily statements that the joint US-Israeli strike in June had obliterated the Iranian nuclear programme once and for all, using the heaviest bunker buster bombs in the US arsenal to destroy the three key nuclear facilities. Israel, meanwhile, has obviously managed to infiltrate the top ranks of the Iranian regime for all the intelligence it needed to kill top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists. Diplomats and political analysts have therefore been scratching their heads as to why Trump chose this particular moment to threaten a new military strike, particularly when he has hardly finished celebrating the formation of the “Board of Peace,” which he said would not only work on its original aim of advancing the fragile truce in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, but to promote peace worldwide. US military adventures abroad are not known to be popular in the MAGA, or Make America Great Again grassroots movement that forms the backbone of Trump support.
The only plausible explanation is that the US president’s closest ally in the region, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has managed to convince him – in the course of their record number of six meetings over the past year, with the seventh reportedly expected this month – of his plan to entirely alter the regional order. This would require dealing the final, deadly blow to Iran after two years of war the Israeli premier launched with US backing in revenge for the daring and humiliating attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023, killing 1,200 Israelis. For Netanyahu, Iran would be the jewel in the crown of a campaign that involved the indiscriminate killing for more than 72,000 Palestinians in Gaza, weakening Hamas, targeting the top leaders of Lebanon’s Hizbullah, which forced the group to sign a ceasefire deal in late 2024, removing the former Syrian regime, and bombing Houthi targets in Yemen, in retaliation for the Houthis targeting Israel and its interests in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.
While the aim of the 12-day US-Israeli attack on Iran in June was to deal a massive blow to the regime, leading to its humiliation and downfall, the majority of the Iranian people chose to oppose such outside intervention. The lessons of neighbouring Iraq back in 2003 following the US invasion remain vivid in too many minds. There is no question that the policies of the Iranian regime have not always been welcome or helpful for many countries in the region, especially in the oil-rich Gulf. Yet military confrontation cannot be the alternative to dialogue and diplomacy, especially at a time when the Iranian regime can see for itself how regional realities have changed in recent years, prompting an urgent need to reconsider its policies.
With Iran’s close proximity to vital oil resources, navigation routes and US military bases, and the regime’s military capabilities, nearly all experts agree that the plan to repeat the Venezuelan scenario in Iran is delusional. There is no doubt that advanced US military capabilities, known and unknown, can inflict heavy damage on the Iranian regime and its military arsenal. But what would be the final goal of such a broad military attack should it take place, and how would it effect regime change? Even more complicated is the absence of a clear alternative to the regime, and the risk of total chaos in a country of nearly 100 million people.
Recognising the dangers of a new war likely to develop into a regional confrontation, the Egyptian government – along with that of Qatar and Turkey – has been pursuing all possible means to calm the current tensions and bring the US and Iran back to the negotiating table. On Saturday, President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi spoke to his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, and expressed Egypt’s deep concern over the rising tensions in the region. The president emphasised the need to avoid escalation and to reject military solutions. He also reaffirmed that diplomatic solutions are the only viable, optimal path to resolving the crisis in a way that spares the Middle East further tension and instability. This latest Egyptian effort reflects a consistent policy over the past few months. In early September, Cairo hosted a meeting between Iran’s foreign minister and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that culminated in an agreement to resume cooperation between the two sides. However, with Israel continuing to press the US administration for military action, this agreement faltered, and Washington – along with European allies – renewed the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
It is not too late to renew Egyptian mediation efforts, backed by nearly all regional leaders known for their close ties with the US and the current administration in particular. Reports on a possible meeting between Iran’s top diplomat and the US envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, in Turkey on Friday is definitely good news. There is no question that those negotiations will be very difficult, weighed down by mistrust between the two sides. Iran has repeatedly stated that it was not looking for a war against the United States or any country in the region. Our hope at this point is that the US administration will not bow to Israeli pressure, recognising instead that there is no such thing as a quick and decisive war against Iran that would not escalate tensions and threaten regional stability for a long time to come.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: