The current round of military confrontation between Israel and Iran represents a qualitative shift in the traditional rules of engagement between the two countries that had prevailed in recent times, which were limited to limited Israeli strikes against Iranian military facilities, followed by Iran's response with long-range ballistic missiles. In its attack, which began at dawn on Friday, June 13, Israel crossed what Iran considered red lines. For the first time, it directly and extensively targeted Iranian nuclear facilities at the Natanz reactor, the fortified Fordow facility, Arak, Bushehr, and other sites, in addition to assassinating six Iranian nuclear scientists. It also targeted Iranian military leaders, most notably the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Army, Mohammad Bagheri, the head of the Revolutionary Guard, Hossein Salami, and more than 20 other military leaders. It also targeted ballistic missile production plants, launch pads, and numerous military bases spread across Iranian cities. In response, Iran, after absorbing these painful strikes, which revealed a major security breach, responded with numerous waves of ballistic missiles, as part of Operation True Promise 3, which targeted major Israeli cities, especially Tel Aviv, and caused numerous casualties, both dead and wounded. The two sides entered an open conflict in all scenarios.
The US position on the current escalation between Israel and Iran is based on several dimensions:
First, the US administration was careful not to get directly involved in the conflict, emphasizing that the Israeli strikes against Iran were unilateral, despite acknowledging that it was aware of these attacks. However, an Israeli attack on Iran of this scale and with expanded targets, especially nuclear facilities, would not have occurred without an American green light and full military and logistical support, a fact acknowledged by President Trump, who noted that Israel carried out successful strikes using great American equipment. President Trump also gave Israel the green light for the first time to target Iranian nuclear facilities, unlike the Biden and Obama administrations, which succeeded in curbing Israeli aggression and not targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, as happened in the confrontation that took place between the two countries last October against the backdrop of the Israeli war on Gaza, where Israeli strikes were limited only to military facilities. Therefore, it can be said that there was complete coordination between the American and Israeli sides regarding the timing and nature of the Israeli strikes on Iran. The timing of the strike came on the 61st day of President Trump's deadline given to Iran, which was based on either reaching a new nuclear agreement within two months, or facing dire consequences. Trump actually pressured Netanyahu not to launch strikes and to exhaust the diplomatic option first, which Netanyahu acknowledged when he indicated that the strike on Iran had been postponed from last April to June. With the five previous rounds of nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran faltering, Trump allowed Netanyahu to launch a large-scale attack on Iran after the two-month deadline had expired.
Second: The Trump administration seeks to exploit the painful Israeli strikes against Iran politically to pressure the Iranian regime to push it towards making concessions and reaching a new nuclear agreement in accordance with the American conditions included in the proposal of President Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, which is based primarily on zeroing out and dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, by Iran stopping enrichment, and instead establishing a regional union for uranium enrichment that would supply Iran only with the 3% enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes, especially electricity generation and scientific research, in addition to Iran getting rid of the amount of enriched uranium it possesses, which amounts to 409 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and reaches 9,247 kilograms of enriched uranium of all grades. Iran also gets rid of advanced centrifuges, especially the I6 type, i.e. paralyzing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to a high percentage and thus the possibility of producing nuclear weapons at any time. This is, of course, what Iran rejected and stressed. Its right to enrich uranium on its territory, with guarantees to allay American and Western concerns about its non-proliferation, while demanding that American sanctions be lifted first. Thus, by stripping Iran of its military power and weakening it, Trump seeks to push it to reach a new agreement, as part of giving Iran a second chance. Otherwise, Israeli strikes will be more ferocious.
Third: America's management of the current conflict between Israel and Iran, which is based on a combination of the carrot and stick policy - allowing Israel to continue its attacks and supporting it militarily - and the call to resume nuclear negotiations and reach a new nuclear agreement, may actually lead to the abyss. The Trump administration's failure to curb the Netanyahu government's impulsiveness and prevent it from expanding the scope of the conflict, especially nuclear facilities and assassinating Iranian leaders, may actually lead to an expansion of the war, especially since the Iranian regime is now facing an existential challenge and may be forced to resort to the option of possessing a nuclear weapon in order to preserve its survival, despite the strikes that have been directed at some nuclear facilities, as there are fortified underground facilities such as the Fordow facilities.
The regional escalation between Israel and Iran threatens to have serious consequences for security and stability in the region, with negative economic, security, and political repercussions. It requires a more effective role from the United States to control the course of interactions and prevent matters from spiraling out of control, by pressuring Israel on the one hand, and focusing on concluding a new nuclear agreement to defuse the regional explosion.
