Iran war has exposed irresponsibly dangerous rivals

As could be expected, the war between the US, Israel, and Iran has come to a sudden halt with an abrupt, though welcome, decision to call for a ceasefire for at least two weeks. As many had anticipated, hostilities ceased when US President Donald Trump decided so, with all sides declaring victory, which is mainly true in their minds. In reality, however, there are more losers than winners in this war, including countries that opposed the conflict from the outset, yet still found themselves embroiled in it against their wishes.
It remains to be thoroughly examined how the US entered this war without exhausting all diplomatic options to achieve the objectives it had set during the recent negotiations in Geneva: ensuring that Iran would not develop military nuclear capabilities, reducing its ballistic missile stock and range, and curbing its support for proxy groups across the region. But what has emerged with alarming clarity is that as long as Israel’s extreme right wing, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remains in power, and, similarly, for as long as the current regime in Tehran persists, with the growing influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the stability of the entire region will remain in constant and severe jeopardy.
For many years, Israel has had legitimate concerns about the threat emanating from Iran. On numerous occasions leading Iranian politicians and clerics have called for the destruction of Israel and in practice it has also supported Israel’s adversaries, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, financially, militarily, and politically. The Iranian regime has also been implicated in attacks on Jewish targets in different parts of the world that resulted in the loss of many lives.
Yet the approach led by Netanyahu, evident not only in the current conflict, is one that rejects any accommodation with Iran short of complete regime change, an unrealistic goal unless it should take place organically by the Iranian people — and could instead result in a prolonged and destructive war. The Israeli prime minister, as much as his judgment is questionable, is also an extremely canny operator when it comes to US politics, one who understands that Israel cannot come close to achieving such objectives without enlisting America’s military power, while the Trump administration remains skeptical about his ideas of how to eliminate the Iranian threat, whether nuclear or conventional.
From a tactical standpoint, the Israeli military, particularly the air force, supported by intelligence services and advanced air defense systems, has demonstrated remarkable capabilities. However, these successes are not being translated into diplomatic or political gains, and are unlikely to do so while Israel is led by a government driven either by ideological extremism or, in Netanyahu’s case, by a combination of delusions of Churchillian grandeur and personal political interests.
For Netanyahu, defeating Iran has become an almost personal mission. In pursuing it, he often fails to distinguish between legitimate courses of action and those that risk escalating an already dangerous situation. He also appears unwilling to acknowledge that military power alone cannot resolve Israel’s security challenges. For years, he has described the Iranian regime as “barbarians” threatening Western civilization, while portraying Israel as being on the front line of preventing such a threat — now with full US backing. This worldview has led to a maximalist strategy, articulated even more forcefully during this war, of going beyond halting uranium enrichment, reducing ballistic missile capabilities, ending support for proxy groups, and contributing, directly or indirectly, to regime change in Tehran, as the ultimate goal. While Iran’s reaction may illustrate the dangers it poses, these absolute objectives have also pushed Iran’s leaders into survival mode, which is their comfort zone, empowering its most hard-line elements. 

GCC states now face a deepening dilemma.

Yossi Mekelberg

Although Netanyahu has publicly accepted the ceasefire, he has done so largely because he is unwilling to openly defy or confront Trump. His intention, however, appears to be to continue what he sees as unfinished business, including further confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon. As long as he and his right-wing coalition remain in power, Israel’s approach is likely to remain heavily reliant on military force, in pursuit of an elusive total victory and regional dominance, risking a broader war and even a global crisis. At the same time, as Israel approaches a general election that by law must be held no later than October, the government may seek to divert public attention from its failures on Oct. 7, 2023, and its controversial actions affecting the country’s democratic institutions, and keep security tensions simmering.
The other side of the equation is Tehran’s response. Iran has attacked neighboring countries that pose no threat to it whatsoever, targeting civilian sites and closing the Strait of Hormuz, actions lacking legal or political justification and at immense cost. These moves have been accompanied by continued repression at home, including the brutal treatment of largely peaceful protesters in recent months. Iran has long been a destabilizing force in the region, and should it acquire nuclear weapons would pose a serious threat to global security. Its recent behavior underscores a disregard for international law and existing agreements. While its instinct for survival may explain its actions, this approach risks long-term consequences, and has caused immense damage to its relationships with neighboring countries and beyond.
As a result, Gulf Cooperation Council states now face a deepening dilemma: how to build a future security architecture that can protect them from further Iranian aggression, while also ensuring their prosperity. Tehran may have calculated, or more accurately miscalculated, that pressuring its neighbors would lead them to urge Washington to halt the war. But instead, it has severely eroded trust and damaged relations to an extent that will take significant time and effort to repair. In doing so, Iran has further undermined its claims that its military programs are purely defensive, including its insistence that uranium enrichment is solely for civilian purposes, claims that were already widely viewed with skepticism.
At the heart of the challenge the region is facing are two highly militarized states, Israel and Iran, which view each other as existential enemies, with enormous destructive military capability, and now with the direct involvement of the world’s most powerful military actor, the US. One suspects that for the leaderships in both countries, mutual hostility has become a source of political justification, enabling them to maintain power, too often at the expense of their own populations and regional stability.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg