Is Israel's spoiler strategy strengthening Iran's hand?

During the past few days, the fragile US-Israel-Iran ceasefire was put to the test with Israel and Iran striking each other for the first time since the 7/8 April ceasefire went into effect. 

This flare-up raised concerns about the Middle East sliding back into all-out war.

The Israeli and Iranian strikes prompted US President Donald Trump to urgently intervene and call on both Tel Aviv and Tehran to halt hostilities as diplomats worked to preserve negotiations aimed at ending the conflict that began on 28 February. 

Although Israel and Iran later announced they were pausing attacks, both warned that future aggression would be met with force.

The confrontation began after Israel attacked Beirut’s Dahiyeh district on 7 June, despite the recent renewal of a US-brokered ceasefire.

In order to make good on its threat to strike Israel if it were to take such an action against Beirut’s suburbs, Iran swiftly retaliated by launching missiles at Israel. 

Israeli forces then struck targets inside Iran, including air defence systems and facilities it said were connected to ballistic missile production. Then on 8 June, Yemen’s Ansar Allah, more commonly referred to as the Houthis, claimed an attack of their own on Israel.

Beyond the immediate military escalation, the episode highlighted growing tensions between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

According to officials and analysts, Trump has sought to negotiate directly with Iran while keeping Israel largely outside the talks. Israel’s leadership, however, appears determined to ensure that any eventual agreement does not restrict Israel's ability to strike Hezbollah in Lebanon or respond independently to what it perceives as serious security threats. 

Israel's decision to strike Iran may have been intended partly as a signal that its interests cannot be ignored in future negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

Despite the temporary halt in fighting, major obstacles remain to a lasting peace deal. Iran has continued linking any broader agreement with developments in Lebanon, while disputes over sanctions, regional security, shipping routes, and Iran's nuclear program remain unresolved.

Officials in governments across the region and beyond are urging restraint and warning that renewed violence could further destabilise global energy markets and strain the world economy. 

For now, both Israel and Iran say they have stepped back from further attacks, but their warnings of retaliation highlight the ceasefire’s extreme fragility. 

Israel's role as a spoiler in US-Iran diplomacy

While pointing to Israel’s “vital interest” in undermining Trump’s efforts to finalise a deal with the Islamic Republic because it would “restrain its project of constant aggrandisement,” Dr Marina Calculli, assistant professor of International Relations at Leiden University, observed a “time incompatibility” between Tel Aviv and Washington.

“Israel feels time is now crucial to expand its imperial project, before the window of opportunity closes. The United States is trying to find a face-saving exit from its defeat in Iran,” she told The New Arab.

“This is why Israel is stretching the limits of its autonomy from its imperial patron, to the point of doing exactly what Trump had publicly told Israel not to do, whilst Trump needs to respond to the strong domestic pressure to end the war with Iran, especially in view of the midterm elections, without compromising its policy of unconditional support for Israel,” Calculli added.

With a similar perspective, Negar Mortazavi, a Washington-based Iranian journalist, host of The Iran Podcast, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, noted that “Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon particularly on Beirut, are threatening the US-Iran peace talks and that seems to be one of its goals; to try to either sabotage the peace process, or if not at least to use the window of opportunity to attack Hezbollah before the US makes a final deal with Iran that would require Israel to stop”.

Iran's reassertion of regional deterrence politics

It is necessary to appreciate the significance of Iran’s attacks on Israel and what they mean for the conflict moving forward. Before these strikes, Iran had never directly targeted Israel in retaliation for attacks on one of Tehran’s allies, explained Mortazavi.

“Hezbollah entered the war alongside Iran, coordinated closely with Tehran, and paid a heavy price. As a result, Iran is pushing for any peace agreement to be regional in scope, incorporating Hezbollah and addressing the conflict across multiple fronts rather than treating Iran and Lebanon as separate tracks,” she told TNA.

Dr Calculli sees Iran’s recent strikes on Israel as bearing “enormous implications” with Tehran reasserting its regional role in two important ways. 

The first is by projecting the Islamic Republic’s regional vision, which is about the “self-determination” of countries in the Middle East and their “liberation from Western domination,” she told TNA.

“This can only be achieved through solid political and ideological alliances, standing in opposition to the US-Israeli imperial scheme of Orwellian ‘peace’ and ‘normalisation’ agreements which would grant Israel the exclusive right to bomb and occupy its neighbours with total impunity,” she noted.

“By protecting its key allies in Lebanon, but also in Iraq and Yemen, Iran is signalling that the ‘Axis of Resistance’ is back on its feet and ready to engage in a long, patient struggle to counteract Zionist aggrandisement, especially as time is not in Israel’s favour.”

Secondly, by demanding that the United States recognise Iran as a regional power and respect its terms by effectively restricting Israel, Iran is seeking a guarantee that Tel Aviv “won’t resort again to its usual politics of treacherous diplomacy,” the assistant professor added.

Officials in Tehran remain committed to their position that any peace agreement needs to be regional and not strictly about the US-Iran bilateral relationship. 

“From Tehran’s perspective, a durable deal must also address Lebanon and the broader network of conflicts that emerged during the war,” Mortazavi told TNA. 

“That means President Trump will need to press Israel to accept a broader framework that includes Lebanon. Without that component, the prospects for a lasting diplomatic breakthrough look much weaker,” she stressed. 

Washington's dilemma and the limits of support for Israel

Looking at these recent strikes carried out by Israel and Iran against each other, it is necessary to ask important questions about Washington’s continued unconditional support for Israel, particularly when it is framed as a means of preserving uncontested Israeli military and political primacy in the region. 

The latest cycle of escalation suggests that this approach may carry negative consequences from the standpoint of America’s national interests, including the entrenchment of a persistent US-Iran confrontation.

Officials in Washington must realise that open-ended backing for Israel’s borderless aggression in the neighbourhood ultimately reduces, rather than enhances, regional stability.

While such US support is all too often justified in Washington on the grounds of alliance credibility, its real impact is the narrowing of diplomatic space for de-escalation in the Middle East.

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero

Edited by Charlie Hoyle