In Middle Eastern politics, hidden agendas, unintended consequences and surprise outcomes are the rule, not the exception. That’s why what began as a catastrophic Israeli failure on Oct. 7 may yield not only an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions but to progress in the region and an end to the tragedy in Gaza.
There are at least two ways to view Israel’s attack on Iran. Critics would argue Israel has not been transparent about its intelligence, its coordination with the U.S. or its true aims, and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu —who is a defendant in an Israeli criminal corruption trial — is playing politics and can never be trusted.
But another interpretation holds that Israel seized a historic opportunity to neutralize a threat that the world’s powers have long failed to confront.
For decades, Iran’s clerical regime has pursued a nuclear program under the guise of civilian energy while bankrolling terrorism and proxy wars abroad. Its proxy militias have undermined a broad swath of the region: Hezbollah has dominated Lebanon and embroiled it in unwanted wars with Israel, while also propping up the murderous Assad regime in Syria; the Houthis have caused the deaths of 400,000 in Yemen, attacked Saudi Arabia and ruined Egypt’s Suez Canal revenue; the web of Shiite militias has undermined the sovereignty of Iraq; Hamas, in massacring 1,200 people in Israel, launched a war that has brought devastation upon Gaza.
Moreover, there is absolutely no civilian purpose to Iran’s insistence on enriching uranium at the 60 percent level, which is near-weaponizable and has been confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel’s concerns about Iranian leaders’ statements that the Jewish State must disappear are not paranoia.
The Islamic Republic’s insistence on the right to do all this — while grievously oppressing its own people, whom it governs through fear — has been a thorn in the side of the region and the world for decades.
So far, Israel has executed its campaign at an astoundingly high level. Israeli jets have controlled Iran’s skies, shattered nuclear infrastructure, eliminated part of the Iranian military’s missile capabilities and assassinated a shocking number of senior security and nuclear figures.
The success has been so dramatic it appears to be tempting the Trump administration into reconsidering its initial position of implausible deniability.
It is well within President Trump’s brand to jump on a winning bandwagon and then take credit for it — which would imply increased American involvement quite soon. One path might be a U.S. operation to take out Fordow, the key Iranian enrichment site, which is so deep underground that only U.S. bunker busting bombs can destroy it. This is, plainly, what Israel wants.
That would also, of course, risk catastrophic escalation, with possible attacks by Iran on American bases in the region, or a rocket that causes major loss of life in Israel turbo-charging the war, and other dangerous scenarios in between. Then again, it could also enable the U.S. and Israel to declare victory and end the war.
Down another path lies a renewed U.S. push for negotiations, which Iran has signaled it would welcome — this time from a position of greater leverage, with the Iranian regime having been thoroughly humiliated. Iran would probably face an ultimatum to not only hand over its enriched uranium but end the production of long-range missiles and foreswear any further interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries.
In all the scenarios, there is now an increased possibility of a collapse of Iran’s theocratic regime. The most likely scenario here is not millions in the streets but a palace coup by the military or security agencies — not unlike what happened in Romania in 1989 and Egypt in 2011 (events fancifully remembered as simply “revolutions”). The chances are not yet high, but these things percolate below the surface. It could happen both if the ruinous war goes on or if Iran endures a humiliating surrender — which is what Trump seems to be aiming for now.
And if Iran is thusly defanged, the consequences for the region could well be transformative.
For starters, it would be the nail in the coffin for the “axis of resistance.” In recent months, Lebanon finally formed a government that seems determined to disarm Hezbollah. Shorn of any Iranian support, the militia may have little choice but to comply — which may also unblock massive assistance earmarked for the economically desperate country from Gulf states.
It would also free Iraq of the interference of the Shiite militias which Iran has backed and guided, enabling a measure of democratic progress in that country. In Yemen, expect a counteroffensive by the internationally recognized government to retake the heart of the country, lost to the fanatical Houthis. That would also enable a full resumption of maritime trade through Suez, hugely aiding Egypt.
The main benefit could be in Gaza, where over 50,000 people, including tens of thousands of civilians, are believed to have died in Israel’s ham-fisted effort to dislodge Hamas — which, despite huge degradation, somehow still holds on and has over 50 Israeli hostages, dead and alive.
But if Hamas is stripped of Iranian backing, Arab states may finally feel emboldened to pressure the group into surrendering. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar could unite to compel Hamas to cede control to the Palestinian Authority, which would be bolstered with Arab security forces on the ground. Palestinians in Gaza, exhausted and bereft of hope, would support that move, creating yet more pressure for Hamas to lay down its weapons, hand over the hostages and accept exile for its remaining leadership.
Of course, Israel too would need to be compelled. Netanyahu has been resisting versions of this scenario for fear that his coalition’s far-right flank — which yearns to reoccupy Gaza and build settlements for Jews there — would bolt and bring him down. But the equation after a huge success in Iran, especially one partly owed to the U.S., is different. Netanyahu, too, would have to play along. And Israelis overwhelmingly favor an end to the war and any scenario that returns the hostages.
That is especially true if the new landscape includes an expansion of the Abraham Accords — with a host of countries no longer fearing Iran, whose central foreign policy was cementing opposition to the existence of Israel. That applies not only to Saudi Arabia, but also notably to Syria — whose new leadership is headed by former jihadists desperate for global legitimacy and investment. Syria’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, has been remarkably silent about the war and has put out feelers to Israel.
Under such a spectacular regional realignment, Netanyahu would not need to worry about his government falling; the moderate opposition would give him a parliamentary umbrella. In the elections that must by law be held next year, he might actually become electable again. Netanyahu has been a divisive, polarizing leader. But history is full of examples of hardliners who changed course: Nixon going to China, de Klerk dismantling apartheid, Sadat flying to Jerusalem.
And as for Trump? He might win his Nobel Peace Prize after all. Considering that it will have begun with a historic massacre committed by Iranian-backed Hamas, that may be the most unintended consequence of all.
Dan Perry led Associated Press coverage in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, including the Israel and Iran bureaus. He publishes Ask Questions Later on Substack.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Could the Israel-Iran war lead to regional peace? )
Also on site :
- 'Hissing door mid-air': AI flight to Hong Kong spooks flyers; crew use napkins to 'fix' issue
- Putin says there& 039;s no evidence Iran wants nuclear weapons
- Israel says it killed a commander of Iranian force that oversees proxy militias.