The unjustified military strikes launched by Israel and the United States, in the midst of negotiations, against a sovereign state and United Nations member, the Islamic Republic of Iran, evoke dangerous historical precedents. They recall the 1930s, when Axis powers, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, ignited the Second World War, as well as the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war.
In the present case, the military adventure initiated by the United States and Israel, at the request and insistence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reflects a strategic miscalculation that risks rapid escalation and a broad regional war. The regional battlefield is already primed for significant harm to Washington’s allies.
This includes:
Vital bases and energy and shipping infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan, which could be targeted by hypersonic missile strikes, drone attacks, or sabotage operations.
The Strait of Hormuz, where even limited disruption could trigger shockwaves in global markets, with Iran capable of exerting tangible maritime pressure.
The Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Egypt could incur severe economic damage due to rising maritime risks, affecting global supply chains and multiple economies, including the United States, where the cost of living and purchasing power are politically sensitive issues. This could negatively impact Trump and the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm elections.
Lebanon, a high risk arena for rapid escalation amid Israeli strikes on targets believed to be affiliated with Hezbollah, further weakening the Lebanese state.
Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, where US forces and bases remain vulnerable to Iranian missile attacks or proxy responses, alongside possible Houthi involvement from Yemen. Such developments could exceed the political capacity of concerned capitals to control escalation.
American Public Opinion: What Matters in Ending the War and “System Change”?
Polling indicates that opposition to a US attack on Iran outweighs support. The idea of “system change by force” also receives limited backing. Public sentiment is heavily influenced by casualty figures, the length of the conflict, and economic cost.
Policies based on “regime change” are politically fragile in the American environment because they:
Suggest open ended involvement resembling the “forever wars” opposed even by segments of Trump’s electoral base.
Increase the likelihood of Iranian retaliation and rising American casualties.
Conflict with public preference for pressure and containment strategies rather than occupation or state rebuilding outcomes.
Why Do Strikes Rarely Remain “Limited”?
Limited strikes tend to expand because each side seeks to:
Restore deterrence.
Prevent subsequent strikes.
Demonstrate resolve to domestic audiences.
Avoid appearing weak before allies or proxies.
Initial damage assessments may also push decision makers to “finish the mission” if results appear inconclusive, particularly when hardened or dispersed facilities are targeted.
Mechanisms of expansion include:
Broadening the target list from nuclear and missile sites to command centres, air defences, and economic infrastructure.
Dynamics of reciprocal retaliation.
Miscalculations and civilian casualties.
Escalating roles of regional proxies.
Munitions Constraints and Allied Support
Reports have pointed to warnings about shortages of certain critical munitions, which may limit the capacity to sustain operations. Limited allied support could further increase exposure of US forces if strikes expand.
Politically, these constraints widen the gap between rhetoric about a “limited operation” and public fears of a prolonged war. This could reflect negatively on Trump’s electoral prospects.
Why Is Escalation So Difficult to Contain?
Control fails when messages are ambiguous, red lines unclear, or when one side believes a delay weakens its position.
Several core factors contribute to this:
Asymmetrical objectives among parties.
Multiple Iranian response tools, including missiles, drones, cyber warfare, and proxies.
Domestic political pressures.
Rapid media narratives that outpace the effectiveness of back channel diplomacy.
Conditions for Escalation Versus Containment
Escalation becomes more likely if:
Significant American casualties occur.
Senior leadership figures are targeted, as has happened, in ways interpreted as attempts at system change.
A maritime energy shock takes place.
Multiple proxy fronts ignite simultaneously.
Deconfliction mechanisms fail.
Containment becomes possible if:
A credible and verifiable temporary ceasefire framework is established.
Back channels are activated through trusted mediators.
Each side can adopt a “victory narrative” that preserves face.
A humanitarian or maritime package is implemented to ease economic pressures.
Washington: What Would Be Required to Halt Strikes?
From a US perspective, de escalation may require:
Verifiable measures to reduce nuclear risk.
A verifiable halt to attacks on US forces.
Guarantees of freedom of navigation and protection of energy infrastructure.
However, sustained public support for any military venture depends on clearly defined objectives and a credible political exit. Otherwise, the discourse of “system change” risks becoming an electoral liability.
Tehran: What Could Motivate It to De Escalate?
Iran would require assurances that there is no pursuit of system overthrow, a gradual mechanism for lifting sanctions, and regional non aggression commitments.
Gulf states and Egypt could also play a deterrent role by controlling airspace, maritime routes, and logistics, thereby influencing the capacity of any coalition to expand operations.
Is “System Change” a Step Too Far?
Strategically, system change is the objective most likely to widen the war, prolong its duration, and increase exposure of US forces to risk. It also strengthens Iranian incentives for broad retaliation.
Politically, polls show that Americans tend to oppose the attack and are unconvinced by the idea of overthrowing a government through military force.
The experience of “forever wars” has entrenched among a wide segment of the public the belief that heavy human and financial costs primarily benefit the military industrial complex and wealthy elites, while ordinary Americans face deteriorating infrastructure, cost of living pressures, and healthcare crises.
Ultimately, the article raises a central question: where is the United States heading? Is “system change” a distant bridge that could lead to escalation beyond containment?
