Israel’s escalating military campaign against Iran depends critically on American backing, echoing troubling patterns familiar from past U.S. interventions in the Middle East. Enabled by Washington, Tel Aviv’s offensive assumes continuous American financial and military support, relying on assurances that the U.S. will replenish Israel’s dwindling weapon stockpiles. Additionally, Israel’s U.S.-funded Iron Dome defense system and American forces’ regional deployments aim to mitigate Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, further underlining the depth of U.S. involvement. Against the backdrop of dimming hopes for a swift resolution, an expanded conflict becomes increasingly likely—reflecting America’s historical pattern in the region, where a blend of military might and unclear diplomatic strategy has repeatedly led to prolonged violence and instability.
President Donald Trump now risks a new era of unpredictable, unchecked warfare under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who historically has leveraged conflict situations overseas to bolster his domestic political position. For decades, Netanyahu envisioned a comprehensive war against Iran—a powerful regional adversary and a committed critic of the Israeli state—yet international caution over vast humanitarian costs and destabilizing repercussions previously restrained such action. Today, U.S. complicity in the Israeli attacks has heightened anxieties within Middle Eastern capitals, with one American official revealing regional fears that Israel could next target neighboring Gulf states it deems too influential.
The Trump administration’s Middle Eastern allies quietly urge moderation, despite their attempts to sway the president through diplomatic overtures and investments linked to Trump’s private enterprises. However, the effectiveness of such appeals is uncertain, as Trump’s foreign-policy process reportedly hinges significantly on the latest input he receives. Recent conflicting statements by President Trump haven’t clarified his position: he has indicated simultaneously that he seeks a negotiated settlement but also appeared to endorse assisting Israel militarily in striking Iranian nuclear facilities directly. These mixed signals contribute to widespread concern within U.S. government circles that America is getting drawn deeper into a destructive conflict without credible strategic justification.
Some policymakers in Washington are openly skeptical of Israel’s declared goals in this conflict, seeing disturbing parallels with the failed rationale underpinning America’s deeply controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq. Notably, senior Israeli leaders including Netanyahu himself have explicitly connected the conflict to regime change. Netanyahu recently portrayed Israeli actions in Iran as efforts opening the door for an Iranian uprising against the country’s leadership, while the Israeli opposition leader Naftali Bennett similarly urged Iranians to rise up, promising international solidarity and support. In Washington, similar rhetoric has gained traction. Congressman Cory Mills, echoing Netanyahu, publicly suggested a rapid regime change in Tehran is achievable. Democrat Senator John Fetterman, known for his firm pro-Israel stance, has also promoted the notion that toppling Iran’s leadership would ease regional security issues.
Experts, however, widely dispute predictions of successful regime change through foreign military interventions, cautioning that experience has repeatedly demonstrated that external attacks more commonly have the opposite effect, prompting populations to rally around incumbent regimes, even unpopular or oppressive ones. Many Iranians remain wary of foreign interference, particularly in light of bitter memories from the devastating conflict with Iraq in the 1980s—further reducing the likelihood that citizens would embrace an Israeli-led attempt at regime change. Notably, outspoken Iranian activists have criticized Netanyahu, questioning his legitimacy and sincerity in coopting their protest slogans.
Critics of current U.S. policy point to an underlying failure to accurately grasp complex realities within Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. Congressman Mills’ recent comparison between Iran’s situation and the December 2024 fall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad misses significant distinctions: Assad’s regime experienced years of exhaustive internal rebellion and civil conflict, whereas the Iranian government retains considerable support from key societal sectors despite ongoing internal dissent.
Broader historical context attributes today’s volatile developments partly to President Joe Biden’s tenure, which positioned subsequent policy decisions. Advocates of diplomacy criticize Biden’s administration for failing to aggressively pursue efforts to resume the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran, a step Biden himself initially supported. By maintaining harsh Trump-era sanctions and attempting to leverage further concessions in nuclear negotiations, Biden’s team ultimately alienated Tehran without extracting tangible security benefits, inadvertently paving the way for heightened Israeli anxieties and more aggressive actions against Iranian nuclear capabilities.
Biden’s unwavering public backing of Israeli actions following the deadly Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, compounded tensions in the broader region. Humanitarian groups and numerous U.S. lawmakers had warned Biden repeatedly that Israel risked violating international laws using American-supplied weaponry. Yet the Biden administration consistently refused to condition or reduce support, thereby normalizing impunity and fostering a dangerous precedent—one that current President Trump appears intent on continuing.
As Israel’s campaign against Iran intensifies, its methods increasingly reflect controversial tactics employed in earlier conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, including military warnings ordering mass evacuations without clear indications when civilian populations can safely return, a practice human rights advocates say has frequently failed to prevent significant loss of life.
While Biden’s defenders credit his administration with bolstering Israel’s position regionally by weakening its adversaries, Trump has thus far followed this path, most notably by retaining Biden-appointed senior military and diplomatic advisors who continue advocating strongly for Israel’s actions. Nevertheless, mounting concern inside the Trump administration and among local and international observers highlights urgent questions around the clarity, morality, and strategic wisdom of America’s continuing support for Netanyahu’s strategy in Iran.
These developments underscore persistent anxiety among American officials over a potentially destructive cycle of violence and instability, fuelled in significant measure by unexamined U.S. support—a dangerous pattern long visible in previous decades of American policymaking in the Middle East, now reemerging yet again.
