Eurasia Press & News
The situation between Israel and Iran has developed into a rapidly escalating conflict, with both sides aggressively attacking the other and each side sustaining civilian casualties.
The scope of Israeli strikes — and their precision — indicates that the situation is no longer solely about dealing with deterrence over nuclear capabilities, but now includes broader aims, namely, regime change.
Post-regime-change scenarios remain unpredictable and could trigger regional destabilization on a scale greater than Iraq, with global ramifications.
The question is no longer whether the Iranian regime would fall should the U.S. partner with Israel in such a war, but rather: what comes after — and are we prepared to bear the weight and the cost of what follows?
The situation between Israel and Iran has developed into a rapidly escalating conflict, with both sides aggressively attacking the other and each side sustaining civilian casualties. Within the course of the past forty-eight hours, however, there appears to be a growing realization that without direct U.S. intervention, the conflict could continue spiraling out of control and morph into a prolonged and even more devastating confrontation — one that Israel cannot sustain on its own. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the offensive that kicked off the latest round of fighting, the most intense between these two longtime adversaries. Yet now, it is becoming increasingly clearer that to achieve its stated objectives, Israel will need military assistance from the United States, beyond anything it has provided so far, which has been intelligence that supported Israel’s campaign.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been sending mixed messages, vacillating between diplomatic overtures and threats of military force. It remains to be seen if the United States will join the conflict militarily. If Israel is intent on fully destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it requires 30,000 lb. “bunker buster” bombs that only B-2 bombers from the U.S. Air Force can deliver. The U.S. has moved in a dozen tankers for aerial refueling and a second aircraft carrier has been dispatched to the region. Washington is at a crossroads in the conflict, where it will move to provide more equipment to Israel to help attack Iran, or dedicate additional resources to getting the Iranians back to the negotiating table. At one point yesterday, Trump posted “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” on his social media platform Truth Social. It appears that Iran may still be open to dialogue in exchange for a ceasefire. “In the future, if the aggression stops, it is obvious that the ground will be prepared for a return to diplomacy,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told foreign diplomats Sunday in Tehran.
Trump abruptly left the G-7 Summit in Canada to participate in planning talks with cabinet officials and members of his national security brain trust. And, the U.S. has moved significant military muscle into the region in the form of a carrier strike group. Politically, there does seem to be a growing rift in Trump’s orbit, with traditional conservatives and so-called “Iran hawks” pushing for greater U.S. involvement, while those who claim to embody the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) and “America First” ideology, are warning Trump not to get the U.S. dragged into another Middle East conflict. Longstanding Iran hawks are trying to convince the President to use military force to inflict a death knell on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Trump has been far from hawkish on Iran and, according to an article in the New York Times, complained to a friend that Netanyahu was “trying to drag him into another Middle East war.” A war with Iran is precisely the type of conflict Trump spent his 2016 and 2024 presidential campaigns suggesting he was against, promising to end “forever wars” and imploring his supporters that his focus would be “America First,” a phrase that just this week he claims only he can define. In other words, the campaign slogan was simply that — a slogan — and his peripatetic foreign policy would shape-shift to represent this phrase, depending on the decisions he made.
Iran has demonstrated unexpected precision and reach in its missile capabilities, striking key Israeli infrastructure, including the Haifa refinery and possibly other critical targets. Because Israel has limited access for journalists near some of the impact sites, the full extent of the damage remains unclear, but imagery from Tel Aviv suggests unprecedented destruction. It is likely in this context that Trump referenced civilian casualties, signaling the severity of the situation.
At this stage of the conflict, for Israel, the survival of the Iranian regime may be viewed as a strategic failure. The scope of Israeli strikes — and their precision — indicates that the situation is no longer solely about dealing with deterrence over nuclear capabilities, but now includes broader aims, namely, regime change. The targeting of the regime’s media infrastructure and the decapitation of top military leadership are classic signs of such a strategy. As in any coup or major shift in power, control over communications infrastructure (TV, radio) is among the first objectives. And while Israel appears to be following the “Hezbollah model” in its approach to leadership depletion, there are major differences between a non-state actor and a regime. Even if Israel goes on to assassinate Khamenei, Iran has entire institutions of its military, intelligence, and security services at multiple levels of redundancy.
Despite previous promises to avoid further entanglement in the Middle East, Trump now appears to be yielding to pressure, paving the way for U.S. military involvement. This risks drawing America back into the “nation-building business.” A parallel can be drawn with Iraq: while Saddam Hussein’s regime was swiftly dismantled, the aftermath was a decade-long quagmire, resulting in thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, trillions of dollars spent, and the eventual rise of Islamic State. If the United States helps engineer the collapse of the Iranian regime, the Trump administration could be saddled with dealing with the aftermath. In another social media post from President Trump yesterday, he wrote the following statement: “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Should Iran’s regime fall, the consequences will extend far beyond Tehran. The post-regime-change scenario remains unpredictable and could trigger regional destabilization on a scale greater than Iraq, with global ramifications. Iranian proxies — from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen — are likely to escalate in coordination, and while some may be significantly degraded, they retain asymmetrical capabilities and guerrilla warfare tactics that could cause substantial destabilization across the region in the event of a full-scale war with the regime. Furthermore, adversarial powers such as China will be closely watching, recalibrating their posture based on perceived U.S. resolve and the effectiveness of American strategy. The fact that the U.S. is now openly discussing targeting Iran’s supreme leader signals that this is no longer about nuclear containment — it is about regime change. If the U.S. gets involved militarily, Iran would then imminently target U.S. interests, both in the immediate region and perhaps further abroad.
We now stand on the precipice of what could become “Iraq 2.0” — only this time, the stakes may be higher and the consequences even more far-reaching. In the immediate aftermath of Saddam’s fall, images of triumph and celebration dominated the global media, and victory seemed assured. Yet those early scenes of euphoria quickly gave way to a far grimmer reality: bloodshed, chaos, and the immense burden of nation-building. The cost of that intervention continues to shape regional and global dynamics to this day. The question is no longer whether the Iranian regime would fall should the U.S. partner with Israel in such a war, but rather: what comes after — and are we prepared to bear the weight and the cost of what follows?
