How the US-Israeli war on Iran could reshape the Middle East

The joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran, launched on 28 February, shattered any lingering illusion that President Donald Trump’s administration might still choose diplomacy over war.

Talks in Oman and Switzerland gave way to the thunder of airstrikes. Now, several days into Operation Epic Fury, American and Israeli forces continue their assault, pounding targets across Iran.

Israel’s sustained bombardments have tactics similar to those deployed in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The human toll in Iran is mounting, with more than 700 people killed, including approximately 150 girls at a school in Minab who lost their lives in the initial strikes.

Israel’s killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the second day of this conflict marked a watershed moment in the Islamic Republic’s history. Now the regime must undergo a leadership transition for the first time since 1989 while simultaneously waging this war.

Across the wider Islamic world, widespread rage has been expressed by many in Shia communities who revered Khamenei.

Tehran has retaliated against Israel, where the death toll has reached at least 10 people, while also waging missile and drone strikes against the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, targeting military bases on their soil which host a US military presence. As of now, six US service members have been killed amid this widening conflict.

Additionally, the Iranians have carried out missile and drone attacks against civilian targets in the GCC states, hitting their centres of economic gravity such as airports, oil and gas refineries, and hotels. Tehran even struck the US embassy in Riyadh in a drone operation.

Beyond the GCC, Iran’s retaliatory attacks have also targeted Jordan and northern Iraq, while the Iranians have effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz. Pro-Iran factions in Iraq have also claimed responsibility for striking US bases in the region, including in the Kurdistan region.

Israel has expanded its own military operations against Tehran’s allies in Lebanon and Iraq. The turmoil has expanded as far west as Cyprus, where Iran struck a British military base, ultimately bringing this war into Europe.

It is still too early to fully realise the ramifications of Washington and Tel Aviv’s decision to initiate strikes on Iran late last month. However, there is little assurance that this confrontation will wind down as quickly as the June 2025 12-day war. Trump has said the military campaign has a timeline of four to five weeks, but it “could go longer”. He also refuses to rule out a deployment of US ground troops to Iran if “necessary.”

The war stands to affect countries worldwide. With hostilities causing oil prices to sharply rise, should the conflict continue with no ceasefire coming into effect soon, there is every reason to expect inflation to return, along with other factors that may harm the global economy’s health.

Washington and Tel Aviv's agendas

The United States, Israel, and several of their Western allies appear united behind a shared goal of decisively weakening Iran to the point that it can no longer challenge their interests in the Middle East.

“The goal is to try to weaken the Islamic Republic at this moment when it’s at its weakest point. Its economy is in shambles. Its people are in revolt,” explained Dr Nader Hashemi, director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, in an interview with The New Arab.

“And so there is a view in Washington, DC and [other] Western capitals…that defeating or weakening the Islamic Republic would be a net gain for Western strategic objectives and goals in the Middle East - the hope being that if Iran can be defeated in a military campaign, on the other side of that campaign Western interests and allies will be more secure and things like the Abraham Accords would have an easier time moving forward,” he added.

There is little ambiguity about the aims of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which is fully intent on regime change in Iran. Less clear, however, is what the Trump administration ultimately seeks to achieve through its military strikes.

On the one hand, Trump has openly called for the collapse of Iran’s government, urging Iranians to rise up against the Islamic Republic as coordinated US–Israeli operations unfold. On the other, he has signalled that the door to negotiations remains open, suggesting a parallel willingness in the White House to pursue diplomatic offramps with the Iranian regime rather than topple it.

“Despite their coordinated attacks, Netanyahu and Trump have slightly different agendas. Netanyahu wants regime change and to go all the way towards the destruction of Iran's firepower and regime power. Trump agrees but prefers to stop the war anytime the Iranian regime succumbs to his will, however defined,” observed Dr Nabeel Khoury, former deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Yemen, in a TNA interview.

“Ultimately, changing the balance of power in the region in their favour is an agreed-upon goal,” he added.

Although Washington and Tel Aviv’s collaboration in the killing of Khamenei will not necessarily bring about the Islamic Republic’s downfall, both the US and Israeli governments appear to regard such an outcome as the ultimate remedy to their longstanding tensions with Tehran.

Michael Young, a senior editor at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, told TNA that regime change is viewed in Washington and Tel Aviv as a “silver bullet” in their dealings with Iran. In his assessment, this objective is “central to their thinking” when confronting what they perceive as the Iranian threat.

“Maybe a week ago, I would have said the primary objective is to limit Iran’s missile capacity, but I think as this operation has started, we see that the objectives have changed, and they’ve become more and more radical. From the beginning, clearly the Israelis wanted a regime change scenario, but now even the Americans are more and more speaking about this,” added Young.

The Gulf's strategic reckoning

Should the Islamic Republic survive, and should the White House ultimately conclude that the staggering costs of the turmoil Iran can unleash across US-aligned states, along with the broader economic shockwaves reverberating worldwide, necessitate a negotiated freeze of the conflict, the Gulf Arab monarchies will face consequential choices. They will be compelled to reassess and recalibrate their foreign policies vis-à-vis Iran and the United States.

“I think there’s going to be a completely new order that emerges after this war, and there’s going to be a demand for accountability. Now, I’m assuming that Iran wins and survives, and I think the GCC states are going to have to figure out what their new relationship with Iran is going to look like, and Iran is going to do the same as well. At the end of the day, they’re going to have to co-exist in some way because they’re neighbours,” explained Dr Hashemi.

Relations between GCC members and a surviving and probably emboldened Islamic Republic are likely to be tense in the aftermath of Tehran’s strikes on the Gulf Arab states, particularly their civilian infrastructure, since 28 February.

“Iran may have seriously harmed its relations with its Arab neighbours in the Gulf, but this was likely inevitable, given their hosting of US bases, and in some cases direct collaboration with Israel. The regime may have a hard time mending fences when the guns finally fall silent,” Dr Khoury told TNA.

Regime change, survival, and the balance of power

At this juncture, the Middle East remains in a state of acute volatility, with events shifting rapidly as hostilities intensify. Whether Washington and Tel Aviv succeed in achieving their objectives in Iran and ousting the government in Tehran, or whether the Islamic Republic withstands the onslaught, will shape the region’s balance of power for years to come.

Should Iran’s government endure despite the death and destruction inflicted upon the country, Tehran would retain the capacity to support its allies in the Axis of Resistance, even if some of them, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, are significantly weaker today than in years past.

There is good reason to question whether the Saudi–Iranian détente can withstand these recent shocks that have set the Gulf on fire. The fragile thaw in bilateral relations may well prove another casualty of these escalating hostilities. It is conceivable, too, that Israel’s strategy has been to pull Iran into a trap, whereby Tehran wages retaliatory strikes that unravel the diplomatic gains achieved between Tehran and Riyadh since the signing of the Beijing agreement three years ago.

“I think we’re entering into a post-rapprochement era between the GCC and Iran. Because the amount of investment that the Saudis have made in diplomacy, time and again, and all that energy they invested simply did not pay off. They have a problem with Iran because they responded the way they did, but also because of the agitators in Israel and the pro-Iran war lobby in the US,” Dr Aziz Alghashian, a senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum, told TNA.

“I think personally we’re heading towards a gradual militarisation, and the GCC states will still maintain relations with Iran in my opinion. But there will be a new security dilemma, and I think the GCC states will try to balance their threatening capabilities,” he added.

Whatever the immediate battlefield outcomes, it is safe to conclude that the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes will have a major impact on the Middle East's security architecture and geopolitical order. The crucial questions pertain to the extent and permanence of these changes.

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero

Edited by Charlie Hoyle