Washington might prefer limited military action, but Israel is likely to pull out all the stops and the effects will reverberate globally

Conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran is escalating rapidly. According to Israeli sources cited by the Daily Mail, the US and Israel may launch strikes against Iran in the coming weeks. The potential decision for military action is linked to growing concerns about Tehran's nuclear program and its increasing regional activity.

Tensions in the Middle East have intensified significantly following a statement by US President Donald Trump at the end of March, threatening Iran with an unprecedented military strike and stricter sanctions, if Tehran refuses to enter negotiations on a new nuclear deal. According to Axios, Trump sent a letter to the Iranian leadership, giving them a two-month deadline - until the end of May - to begin negotiations. The letter was reportedly firm in tone, and Trump made it clear that the consequences of refusal would be devastating.

Israel views the current political situation - with Trump back in office - as a "perfect window of opportunity" to pressure Iran. According to Israeli officials, such a moment may not come again. They also point to the advancement of Iran's nuclear program, which, in their view, is nearing a critical stage that is raising alarm within the international community.

In addition, Israel accuses Iran of being involved in the October 7, 2023, attack that triggered a new wave of conflict with the Hamas movement. Israeli sources claim that, in recent months, the Israel Defence Forces already carried out several strikes on Iranian targets and groups linked to Iran in Yemen and Syria - as part of preparations for a possible large-scale confrontation.

Tehran's response came swiftly. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the country would deliver a "crushing response" to any provocations or aggression from the US or Israel. He also placed the Iranian armed forces on high alert. According to Reuters, Iran warned neighboring countries - Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Türkiye, and Bahrain - that any support for a potential US attack, including the use of airspace or territory, would be regarded as a hostile act with serious consequences.

Amid the growing crisis, Iran expressed its willingness to engage in indirect talks with the US through intermediaries, particularly Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the country is ready to discuss its nuclear program and sanctions under conditions of mutual trust but ruled out returning to the terms of the previous agreement, stating that Iran has "significantly advanced" its nuclear capabilities. According to him, Tehran will act based on principles of protecting national sovereignty.

Despite Khamenei's rejection of direct dialogue with Washington, Iranian President Mahmoud Pezeshkian has shown interest in negotiations, emphasizing the need for "equal dialogue" without threats or coercion. However, under Iran's political hierarchy, it is Khamenei who holds the ultimate authority, and his stance remains decisive.

In this complex and explosive environment, the international community is also paying close attention to Russia, which, according to Bloomberg, has expressed its willingness to act as a mediator in the dialogue between the US and Iran. According to the publication, in February, Donald Trump discussed the possibility of Russian mediation with President Vladimir Putin, to which Moscow responded positively.

Russia has traditionally played an important diplomatic role in Middle Eastern affairs and maintains stable relations with both Tehran and Washington. In this context, Moscow's involvement could play a stabilizing role and create an opening for negotiations. While the implementation of such an initiative may require additional time and favorable conditions - such as de-escalation of US-Russia tensions and progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine - the very fact of Moscow's interest in de-escalation and a diplomatic solution is already a positive sign.

Against the backdrop of a rapidly escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran, the world is watching developments with bated breath, trying to understand whether the current standoff will become a prelude to a full-scale war or remain confined to limited military actions and diplomatic pressure. Signals coming from the US, Israel, and Iran indicate that the situation is teetering on the edge, and any misstep could trigger a large-scale regional conflict with consequences reaching far beyond the Middle East, potentially affecting the entire global security architecture.

For the Trump administration, it is critically important to secure concessions from Iran that would allow for a new nuclear deal - one significantly tougher than the agreement reached under President Barack Obama. While Democratic administrations primarily focused on limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions and partially reintegrating Tehran into the international community, Trump and his circle are pursuing a far more radical agenda. Their strategy goes well beyond the technical limits of nuclear activity. The goal of the Republican administration is to systematically and permanently weaken Iran as a regional power, dismantle its geopolitical influence, and neutralize the entire network of alliances that Tehran has built over the past two decades.

A central focus of this strategy is countering the so-called "Shiite Crescent" - a network of political, military, and ideological ties encompassing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (primarily through Hezbollah), and Yemen (via the Houthis). For both the US and Israel, this crescent represents a significant threat, as it strengthens Iran's position in the Middle East and extends its sphere of influence right up to Israel's borders and near vital American interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays a key role in implementing this anti-Iranian strategy. His long-term goal is not only to shield Israel from a potential nuclear threat but to achieve the strategic defeat of Iran as a hostile state. Netanyahu has always maintained a hardline, uncompromising stance toward Tehran, viewing it as an existential threat to Israel. He does not conceal his interest in Israel's direct involvement in an operation aimed at neutralizing that threat. Moreover, his views strongly resonate within the American Republican establishment, and it is precisely this alignment that today significantly shapes US foreign policy toward Iran.

It is no coincidence that in many statements by US officials, the emphasis is not so much on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as it is on the "total elimination of the threat" posed by Iran. In this context, the nuclear program becomes only one component of a much broader geopolitical game. For Donald Trump, it is crucial to demonstrate determination and strength - both in foreign policy and to his domestic audience - especially in the run-up to another election cycle. Successfully pressuring Iran and concluding a "new, better deal" could become a major political triumph for him, especially when contrasted with the Democratic approach, which he has frequently criticized as weak and naive.

However, the situation is complicated by the fact that Iran is approaching negotiations from a very different position than it did in 2015. According to intelligence estimates, the country's nuclear program has already advanced much further than before, and the political leadership - chiefly Khamenei - has openly stated that a return to the previous terms is impossible. At the same time, Tehran has expressed readiness for indirect dialogue, showing a degree of flexibility, but only if it is not perceived as a capitulation.

The current tensions in the Middle East are unfolding against the backdrop of a profoundly transformed geopolitical reality, in which the projection of power has become the primary tool of diplomacy. Washington, under the leadership of Donald Trump, seeks to convince Tehran that refusing negotiations will lead to serious consequences - ranging from intensified economic pressure to limited military action. The entire US strategy today is built around the concept of coercive diplomacy: creating conditions in which Iran is compelled to return to the negotiating table - but this time under terms more favorable to the US. This approach is not new, but in its current form, it has become far more aggressive and risky.

A scenario involving precision strikes on Iranian infrastructure - especially sites linked to the nuclear program or to Iranian allies' military bases in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Yemen - seems highly likely. Such interventions could be presented as "limited" or "preventive," aimed at avoiding escalation, but in practice, they could lead to unpredictable consequences. Nevertheless, a full-scale war between the US and Iran appears unlikely at this stage. The cost of such a conflict - military, political, and economic - is simply too high. Washington understands that an open war with Iran would inevitably draw in regional players, destabilize the global energy market, and trigger a chain reaction of conflicts across the Middle East.

Yet there is a critical variable in this equation - Israel. Unlike the US, Israel does not see a conflict with Iran as a risk, but rather as a historic opportunity. After the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when a large-scale war with Hamas broke out, Israel entered a state of heightened military readiness, simultaneously strengthening internal mobilization and political resolve. In this new reality, Tehran has become firmly established in the mindset of the Israeli establishment as the primary source of threat, and the idea of delivering a decisive blow to Iran is no longer seen as a last resort - it has become part of strategic thinking.

The Israeli leadership may attempt to take advantage of the current international climate - when US attention is focused on China and the war in Ukraine - as a convenient moment to eliminate the Iranian threat. The possibility that Israel might itself initiate a serious escalation - through strikes on Iranian territory, cyberattacks, or provoking retaliatory actions via proxy forces - remains very real. Such actions would aim to draw the US into a more active role, including potential military involvement, under the pretext of defending an ally.

Such a scenario is far from unrealistic. The US could be drawn into a large-scale war not by its own strategic choice, but due to alliance commitments and political pressure. History offers numerous examples where the actions of one ally triggered the involvement of a larger power in a conflict that was never part of its original priorities.

At the same time, the region has entered a phase of profound transformation. The events of October 2023 marked a watershed moment, signaling the end of illusions about stability based on a fragile balance of power. The role of informal alliances is growing, the influence of non-state actors is expanding, and the security architecture in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean is undergoing significant change. In such an environment, any large-scale shifts - whether political, economic, or military - are inevitably accompanied by conflict. It is in this context that the current tensions acquire a particularly dangerous dimension: this is not merely a struggle over the terms of a new agreement or control over a specific region - it is a battle over the future order of the Middle East.

A particularly significant factor in this emerging geopolitical configuration is the strategic partnership between Iran and China. In recent years, this alliance has grown substantially, becoming a key component of a new multipolar global architecture. Iran is not only one of China's closest partners in the Middle East but also a critical link in Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. Additionally, Iran is a vital participant in the International North-South Transport Corridor, which connects Asia with Europe and is actively supported by Russia. This corridor serves as an alternative to traditional Western-controlled trade routes and is designed to strengthen Eurasian cooperation based on mutual benefit and independence from Western institutions.

A military operation against Iran would automatically deal a blow to Chinese interests. This includes energy contracts, logistics chains, access to natural resources, and strategic infrastructure. Iran is one of the largest oil suppliers to China, and any military intervention would jeopardize not only current supplies but also long-term investments. However, Beijing has anticipated such a scenario and, in recent years, has actively diversified its presence in the region. By deepening relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and even Israel, China seeks to avoid overreliance on Tehran in its Middle East policy. This allows Beijing to maintain regional influence even in the face of serious disruptions, minimizing the risks associated with potentially losing Iran as a partner.

On a deeper level, there is a growing impression that the US and Israel are pursuing a long-term strategy aimed at transforming the entire Greater Middle East. This strategy appears to be centered on the weakening, fragmentation, or even disintegration of traditionally strong regional powers - such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Türkiye, and potentially even Saudi Arabia.

The main tool for this transformation is not direct military occupation, as seen during the "War on Terror" era, but rather the activation and intensification of old and new fault lines - ethnic, sectarian, tribal, and socio-economic. The fueling of these internal conflicts leads to the gradual collapse of centralized states and their replacement with smaller, weaker entities dependent on external military, economic, and political support. Such fragmented, "mosaic" regional structure are easier to control, allow for more direct access to natural resources, and limit the emergence of new, independent centers of power.

However, the implementation of such a strategy carries significant risks - above all, for global stability. The Persian Gulf and the surrounding countries remain the heart of the world's energy infrastructure. Approximately half of all global oil and gas exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any escalation in this region - let alone a full-scale war - has the potential to disrupt these vital energy flows. In the event of armed conflict with Iran, the likelihood of a blockade of the Strait becomes extremely high, especially if Tehran sees it as its only effective leverage over international community. In such a scenario, oil prices could skyrocket to $120 - 130 per barrel or higher, triggering a global recession, surging inflation, widespread logistical disruptions, and growing social instability in energy-importing nations.

The mounting threat of an energy crisis and global recession could, in turn, accelerate the shift toward a new model of the world order. A conflict with Iran - despite being regional in scope - could serve as a catalyst for global transformation. It may hasten the decline of American unipolarity, strengthen Eurasian integration, and stimulate the development of alternative financial and economic systems that are independent of the US dollar and Western institutions. There is already growing interest in regional currencies, barter-based trade mechanisms, and infrastructure investments that bypass the West. The influence of organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is expanding, while the US gradually loses its monopoly on shaping the rules of the global system.

Thus, a conflict with Iran - one that now seems increasingly likely - is not just another episode of regional tension. It is potentially a pivotal moment that could define the trajectory of global development for decades to come. Its consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East, affecting Europe's economy, Asia's energy security, and political stability across the developing world. What is at stake is far greater than the outcome of a single conflict: it is the future of the international system itself - its principles, centers of power, and frameworks for global interaction.

(RT.com)