For decades, resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a key focus for successive U.S. administrations. Every president since Harry S. Truman has attempted peace initiatives, such as the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Accords, but none succeeded in achieving a lasting settlement. The recurring hurdle has been Tehran’s opposition, a constant factor since the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Recent developments indicate a significant shift in U.S.-Israeli strategy towards Iran. Direct military strikes by both countries inside Iranian territory in June marked a historic and unprecedented escalation. This bold action has effectively broken a long-standing taboo that had prevented such direct engagements for over four decades.
Former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions suggest an increasing willingness to confront the Iranian regime aggressively. His social media posts have included explicit warnings linking Iranian state violence against protesters to potential U.S. intervention. Seven deaths during current Iranian protests reinforce his justification for possible military or political action.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly encouraged Iranians to rise against their government, underscoring the regime’s vulnerability. He described the Iranian government as weaker than ever and urged citizens to seize the moment for change. This sentiment aligns with Israel’s systematic efforts over recent years to diminish Tehran’s influence by targeting its regional proxies including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
The unresolved issue of Iran’s nuclear program remains a major irritant. Despite Israeli and U.S. airstrikes in mid-year, reports indicate Iran retained most of its enriched uranium stockpile. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates Iran possesses approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to almost weapons-grade levels. Without transparent inspections, the exact status of the nuclear material is unknown.
Efforts by the U.S. to negotiate a rollback of Iran’s nuclear ambitions have stalled. In contrast, Israel considers Iran’s nuclear capability an existential threat, viewing military action as an unavoidable last resort. The Brussels-based International Crisis Group categorizes the Israel-Iran conflict as a top-tier flashpoint with a high probability of escalating into war in 2026.
Trump’s close alignment with Netanyahu strengthens the likelihood of joint U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran. Their meeting in Florida reaffirmed cooperation and coordination, with Trump pledging to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if Tehran attempts to rebuild it. The June air strikes were hailed by both leaders as a successful joint effort, but Netanyahu advocates for further strikes to indefinitely degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Trump’s tenure is marked by historic pro-Israel policies. He was the first president to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S. embassy there. He also brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations. Additionally, his administration recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal signed under the previous administration.
Netanyahu has publicly compared Trump to Cyrus the Great, the Persian ruler who historically helped Jews return to Jerusalem. This analogy serves as recognition of Trump’s unique support for Israel’s geopolitical ambitions. The Israeli prime minister has promised to honor Trump with Israel’s highest civilian award, a gesture unprecedented for a non-Israeli.
Iran’s regional influence and internal stability are at historic lows, with its proxies weakened and civil protests intensifying. The combination of domestic unrest and external military pressure could create conditions favorable for drastic political changes in Tehran. Trump appears poised to leverage this moment in his final term to attempt regime change, a goal that could realign Middle Eastern geopolitics and open pathways to long-sought peace agreements.
The evolving relations among the U.S., Israel, and Iran underscore how intertwined military strategy, diplomacy, and domestic politics are in this volatile region. Future actions by Washington and Jerusalem will likely shape the geopolitical landscape and stability of the Middle East for years to come.
Read more at: www.eurasiantimes.com
