After Israel’s strike, Iranian foes and US friends may soft-pedal escalation
Israel has leapt on Iranian weakness to attack its nuclear programme. The losses of its Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syrian allies, not to mention some of its own leadership, are likely to further slow Tehran’s typically lengthy response time, notwithstanding its fiery rhetoric on Friday.
From the Trump administration, seemingly unclear on how far it has been blindsided by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expect efforts to contain the damage done to the US president’s efforts to calm the wider Middle East in the interests of peace — and profit.
That may disappoint any in Israel who have been hoping to bounce their American friends into applying their bunker-busting strength to Iran’s underground facilities. But it would not be consistent with Trump’s pledges to be a president for peace – and his appetite for deals in the Gulf.
Europeans, who have lined up to call for restraint and whose leaders meet Trump this weekend at the G7 summit in Canada, will align with Washington if it does try to rein in Israel. They should restrain themselves, though, from “I told you so” rhetoric over Trump’s wrecking of the Iran nuclear deal during his first term. That had bound the US with Russia, China, and the EU, to contain Iran’s civil nuclear projects. It infuriated Netanyahu.
Israel’s attack highlights evolutionary nuances in its relationship with a US administration that has defended it against mounting anger among its other allies over the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. Friday’s operation came ahead of planned US-Iran talks in Oman over the weekend, which Israel was opposed to. Trump had also generated unease among Netanyahu’s team by not visiting Israel during a Middle East tour in May and by removing pro-Israel hawks from his team, notably National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
Iran, which was called out just days before the strike by the IAEA for breaching non-proliferation obligations, tends to mull over its reactions to shocks like the Israeli attack. Recent losses seem likely to compound that time lag. As the result of its drone riposte on Friday showed, its options to make good on pledges to deliver “severe punishment” are, in any case, very limited. Over the past year or so, the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, Tehran’s allies in Gaza and Lebanon, have been seriously degraded by Israel over the past year or so. Its Syrian ally President Bashar al-Assad is now in exile in Russia. Israel’s Iron Dome has already shown it can adequately deal with and defend against Iran’s missile and drone attacks.
Yet we can be certain that the latest Israeli action will not impact the Islamic Republic’s dedication to its nuclear programme. If anything, it may result in Tehran speeding up its efforts and taking steps to strengthen its underground facilities, where it aims to avoid prying eyes and missiles.
However, a less-than-massive armed response by Iran could discomfit Netanyahu, if he were counting on that to pull US forces into his offensive.
Whatever happens, Washington knows that getting drawn into this militarily would result in escalating instability in an already unstable region. Its regional Arab allies have already condemned Israel’s strike. Trump will surely be very reluctant to risk the unravelling of his recently struck “amazing deals” with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and others.
The US president, who portrayed himself on his inauguration as a “peacemaker”, who dismayed Europeans by seeming ready to make peace at any price with Vladimir Putin, and who talks of deserving a Nobel peace prize, is most probably going to try to contain this. The other option would only fire up another war in a region which, right now, needs anything but.
Amanda Paul is a Senior Policy Analyst and Deputy Head of the Europe in the World Programme at the European Policy Centre.
