I May Do It, I May Not Do It...
A story of three volatile men and what possible fate awaits a world in suspense
Over the past week, all eyes were staring at the exchange of missile strikes between Israel and Iran.
What started as a not-so-surprising, but shocking, attack on Iran by Israel escalated into a horrifying exchange of missile strikes between the two regional powers. Israel successfully struck Iranian military and nuclear sites, as well as conducting daring assassinations against Iran’s top nuclear scientists and the country’s chain of command. On the other side, Iran retaliated by launching missiles straight at Israel, damaging civilian buildings and hospitals, as the famous Iron Dome defense system was not able to intercept all the incoming missiles. Multiple countries have evacuated their citizens and embassy staff in fear of a wider attack.
Making things worse, Trump has spent the week dabbling in will-he-won’t-he rhetoric on whether he would join in the military campaign in Iran. Over this week, he has first called for the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, adding that the US knows the supreme leader’s locations. Then, his position shifted by claiming “nobody knows” his plans on Iran as he delivered an “ultimate ultimatum” to Iranian leaders to dismantle their nuclear program. By the end of the week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the US president will decide whether his country will attack Iran “within the next two weeks,” adding that “there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.”
This came as Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Israel made a “huge mistake” and they would never surrender. In a direct warning to the US, Khamenei said military intervention by America will lead to “irreversible damage.” By the latter part of the week, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, heads to Geneva for talks with his counterparts from the UK, France, and Germany. However, the talks showed limited results as Araghchi said Tehran was not interested in negotiating an end to the war until Israel stopped its attacks. In an interview with NBC News, Araghchi said a deal could be reached with the US within the two-week time frame given by the president, but Tehran is uncertain whether it could trust officials in Washington to handle negotiations.
At the time of writing, the conflict has barely shown signs of calming down. Multiple news sources have reported that US officials were preparing for the possibility of an Iran strike in the upcoming days, but noted the situation was still evolving and could change. It comes as the WSJ reported that Trump privately approved attack plans for Iran, but has withheld from making the final order.
What happens next is anyone’s guess, but I think it is important to take into consideration the three leaders most invested in the conflict: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and US President Donald Trump.
If you have been following Israel’s politics, you might have noticed that it has always seen Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat. Since the 1990s, Netanyahu has warned that Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb between “imminently” to “weeks” or “months.”
In the on-and-off 20+ years that he has been in power, he has always wanted to bomb Iran and cut off the country’s nuclear program for good. This time, he finally gets what he wanted for years.
Of course, one of the reasons he wants to start a war with Iran is to maintain power. As I have noted before, Netanyahu is under trial over allegations of corruption, and his increasingly unpopular war in Gaza has divided Israel against his continued campaign to occupy the region. However, I don’t think that is the driving motive behind Netanyahu’s decision to go to war.
For one, Iran is weaker than ever before. Since October 7, Israel’s retailation on its proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas has been crippling. Israel’s killings of top proxy leaders and the Hezbollah pager attacks last year have deeply damaged the command structure of Iran’s top proxies. Even though they are still standing, their fighting capabilities have dramatically weakened. It is reflected in the current conflict between Iran and Israel, given that Hezbollah has been sitting out on the conflict for the first week of the fighting.
This is where the Ayatollah comes in. As Sanam Vakil pointed out, “Khamenei’s personality — calculating and ideologically rigid — has been both an asset and liability.”
Right now, the deeply unpopular theocrat is in an unbelievable bind. As the Mahsa Amini protests have shown, the current theocratic regime is deeply unpopular among its people. If Iran folds and makes a compromise, Netanyahu will see it as either surrender or weakness that he could further exploit, making Israel the regional hegemon of the Middle East. If you know anything about the Middle East, Iran hates Israel and probably won’t take such action that might lead to a strengthened Israel on the terms of a weaker Iran.
On the other side, in a (currently) remote chance that Khamenei could be removed, he would likely go down with a fight. As we have seen with the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they have vowed to “never surrender.” This kind of brinksmanship certainly helps morale at home, even if it might lead to a further escalation in conflict with Israel and the United States.
I would argue the current Iranian leadership is less worried about what Khamenei would blurt out in response to Netanyahu and Trump’s threats, and more about what’s happening in its political structure. Given that Israel has decimated much of Iran’s military chain of command, Iran has grown increasingly insecure about its inner circle. For one, nobody knows whether top officials themselves were compromised, both willingly and unwillingly. Just this week, Iranian officials were ordered to stop using mobile devices and delete WhatsApp, in fear that Israel can use them to conduct assassinations and attacks. Secondly, given that Israel can repeatedly kill the new military officials who have replaced the old generals assassinated by Israeli strikes, the need for military recalibration and change in personnel costs resources and valuable time to fight Israel.
Khamenei also matters if he is removed from power. Because if he is assassinated by Israel or suddenly dies of old age, the power vacuum that it creates could lead to drastic consequences. For one, regime change could be possible, especially if Israel and the US decide to take this drastic action. As we have seen with Iraq and Libya, what comes after a “successful” regime change is often messy, destructive, and never benefits the people who live there. As Time magazine pointed out, one of the major issues calling for regime change in Iran lies in how the current regime is embedded in the country’s culture and politics.
American analysts often underestimate the strength of the Iranian state, which is structured for survival. The Iranian military has a dual architecture designed to resist coups and invasions: Artesh, the regular armed forces of around 420,000 men across ground, naval, air, and air-defense forces, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite, ideologically driven military with roughly 190,000 personnel across ground, naval, and air branches. Beyond them is the Basij, a vast paramilitary network with hundreds of thousands of members embedded in every corner of Iranian society—in the streets, in neighborhoods, in schools, and mosques. They aren’t just loyalists of Ayatollah but woven into a deeper idea of the state and committed to the independence of Iran.
Despite Israel’s extensive and quite successful campaign of assassinations targeting senior IRGC commanders, the core of this group has not been hollowed out but hardened. A younger generation of more ideologically rigid commanders has emerged. They came of age in a regional military power, see themselves as the stewards of an embattled regional order, and push for more aggressive postures toward the United States and Israel—stances their more pragmatic predecessors, shaped by the war with Iraq, often resisted. This new generation of Iranian military commanders has also been battle-hardened in close-quarter conflict in Syria and understand how wars of state collapse can unfold.
If this war morphs into a war of state collapse—and it very well might—then what comes next will likely not be surrender. The Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, which helped organize a patchwork of militias that bled American forces in Iraq for years, is well-positioned to do the same again. These networks—Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan—were built precisely to extend deterrence and sow instability in the event of direct conflict. Israel has deeply weakened Iran’s axis of non-state actors in the region, but Tehran retains the ability to foment militias to fight against American and Israeli troops and interests.
Circling back to Netanyahu’s motivations for war, the second point lies in the fact that he has seen an ever-closer ally in Donald Trump. For years, Netanyahu has known he needs the support of the US if he ever wants a full-blown war with Iran. Eventually, Israel would need military assistance from its American allies if it wants to achieve its military goals in Iran, including a possible regime change. Now, Netanyahu knows he has the backing of Trump, who is willing to at least reluctantly support his efforts to As reported by outlets such as NBC News, Israel has changed Trump’s mind from opposition to in favor of striking Iran.
In recent weeks, Israel grew more convinced that the threat posed by Tehran was getting increasingly serious and urgent. And while he had already decided not to stand in Israel’s way, on Thursday, only hours before the strikes began, Trump remained at least publicly hopeful that diplomacy would win the day.
…
Behind the scenes, the Israelis had already laid much of the groundwork for Trump’s measured change. Trump had hoped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could be persuaded not to mount an attack. But over the past week, he came to accept that Israel was determined to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that the United States would have to lend some military support for defensive purposes, as well as some intelligence support.
One of the reasons Israel wants US assistance lies in the GBU-57, a 30,000-pound bomb that is more commonly referred to as the “bunker buster.” Military experts say if Israel wants to decimate Iran’s nuclear program, it needs such weapons to destroy underground nuclear facilities in sites like Fordow, an Iranian uranium-enrichment facility.
Since we are on the subject of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, we need to start talking about Trump. In 2018, the then-US President ripped off the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement. You might know it better as the Iran nuclear deal.
The Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a landmark accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in July 2015. Under its terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief.
Proponents of the deal said that it would help prevent a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and thereby reduce the prospects for conflict between Iran and its regional rivals, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, the deal has been in jeopardy since President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it in 2018. In retaliation for the U.S. departure and for deadly attacks on prominent Iranians in 2020, including one by the United States, Iran has resumed its nuclear activities. UN inspectors reported in early 2023 that Iran had enriched trace amounts of uranium to nearly weapons-grade levels, sparking international alarm.
In Trump’s second term, the US President has tried to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, in a bid to reach a nuclear deal that many say is a crappier version of the JCPOA. However, there is one major hurdle that Obama did not encounter during the difficult talks that led to the agreement: The US did not betray and back off from the original nuclear deal. Based on the logic of officials from Tehran, if the US could not be trusted with the first agreement, why trust them with another one?
The historian Allan Lichtman has made an excellent argument on why Trump has contributed to the current conflict, which you can take a look below.
Looking at Trump’s reactions to the Iran conflict, it looks like he is driven more by FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) instead of rational policy making. This is the same president who dismissed his own Director of National Intelligence. Over the weekend, Trump said Tulsi Gabbard was “wrong” in claiming Iran was not building a nuclear weapon during a public testimony months ago, saying the Iranians could have a nuke in “weeks.” Coincidentally enough, that matches Netanyahu’s recent comments on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Also, the “two-week” comment is not as reassuring as you may think. It doesn’t mean the Trump team is going to use the time for negotiations and diplomacy; it serves more as a placeholder that indicates he has no idea what to do next. As NBC News pointed out, “Trump has promised action on questions or decisions in ‘two weeks’ over a dozen times in the last two months, according to an NBC News review — and he used the same timeline repeatedly during his first term in office.”
In some ways, what Trump is doing is similar to what George W. Bush did before the war in Iraq, but with a Middle Eastern country that ends in “n” instead of “q,” and there is less usage of complex justifications and more fawning comments with religious undertones, as reflected in this actual text message by the American Ambasador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
God spared you in Butler, PA to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever. The decisions on your shoulders I would not want to be made by anyone else.
You have many voices speaking to you Sir, but there is only ONE voice that matters. HIS voice.
I am your appointed servant in this land and am available for you but I do not try to get in your presence often because I trust your instincts.
No President in my lifetime has been in a position like yours. Not since Truman in 1945. I don’t reach out to persuade you. Only to encourage you.
I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else’s.
You sent me to Israel to be your eyes, ears and voice and to make sure our flag flies above our embassy. My job is to be the last one to leave.
I will not abandon this post. Our flag will NOT come down! You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!
It is my honor to serve you!
There is a lot of context needed for American support of Israel, part of which comes from evangelical support on religious grounds. Long story short, they believe Jesus will come back and take all the “good” Christians to heaven; those who don’t convert (Including the Jews) will be sent to hell in “the Rapture.”
More notably, this conflict has created a surprising split within the MAGA base, with some GOP senators like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham in full support of bombing Iran, while others like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson are adamantly opposed to the war. As Bill Kristol put it in The Bulwark, “America First” is dead.
Right now we’re in the midst of a raging debate about whether President Trump should make one last effort at negotiating with Iran or use military force in trying to remove Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity for good. Whichever of these alternatives you prefer, neither is “America First.” “America First” would tell you the whole fight should be none of our business. An “America First” administration would warn both parties not to attack our homeland or our people. That’s it.
But that’s not what’s happening. And it isn’t what’s been happening elsewhere in the world either. This administration has been reluctant to help Ukraine but claims to stand resolutely behind Taiwan. It seeks deeper ties with the Gulf States. It wants to move away from NATO, but is happy to intervene in European politics, supporting, for example, the extreme right-wing AfD in the recent German elections.
The fact is, for all the talk about rejecting “globalists,” the experience of the Trump administration is one of intervening, repeatedly, in global affairs. There is no Fortress America possible in the 21st century. “America First” is dead, if it ever really existed. The conduct of American foreign policy raises huge questions and implicates very different visions of America’s role in the world. But the question isn’t whether or not we’re going to shape the global order. We are going to do that. The question is how we will do it—for better or for worse? And as we make our choices, we should also remember that inaction is as much a choice as action.
The slogan “America First” is an attempt to short-circuit the serious debate we need to have about our foreign policy. But as the Israel-Iran crisis shows, one way or the other, we’re going to be involved. We are all globalists now.
All of this is a recipe for disaster, with the scenario many expect being Trump joining Israel in attacking and bombing Iran, but not sending boots on the ground. But don’t be mistaken, even doing that will create ripple effects within Tehran, as well as the Middle East and the world. With the escalating war now in its second week, the only losers are the civilians in both sides caught in the gunfire.