Iran, US, Israel leaders' words hint at bloody protracted war

US and Israeli strikes on Iran have triggered one of the most serious regional confrontations in years, with retaliatory attacks spreading across the Gulf and into Iraq.

But beyond the exchange of missiles and drones, the public rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggests that the campaign may not be a short and contained operation, but a long and bloody offensive to overthrow the Iranian government.

Their language - echoed in defiant terms by Tehran - points to ambitions and risks that could extend the conflict well beyond an initial round of strikes.

Trump: beyond deterrence

In announcing the offensive, Trump described the beginning of "major combat operations" aimed at eliminating "imminent threats" posed by Iran.

He said the objective was to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme and degrade its military capabilities, framing the action as necessary to protect US forces and allies.

His language went further than conventional deterrence messaging.

Addressing members of Iran’s armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Trump warned they must "lay down your weapons" and soldiers would receive "complete immunity" if they did so - or "face certain death".

He also addressed the Iranian public directly, urging them to "take over your government" once military operations were complete.

Such remarks introduce a political dimension to what might otherwise be framed as a narrowly defined military campaign. Calls for Iran's armed forces to stand down and encouraging internal political change also suggest that aims could go beyond a one-off wave of strikes.

Moreover, Trump also seems to be preparing the US public for a long war that will see American lives lost.

"The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties that often happens in war," he said.

"But we're doing this, not for now. We're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission."

If the objective is the destruction of core strategic assets, not just nuclear facilities, but missile and military infrastructure and command structures, that would likely require sustained operations rather than a brief exchange.

Netanyahu: existential framing

Netanyahu cast the campaign in similarly expansive terms. Announcing 'Operation Lion’s Roar', he said the purpose was to neutralise Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and described Tehran’s leadership as a "murderous terror regime".

He reiterated that Iran represents an existential threat to Israel, language that he has used previously to justify a longer-term war of regime change rather than symbolic or purely strategic strikes. Netanyahu also addressed the Iranian people directly, saying the operation could create conditions for them to "take their destiny into their own hands", reinforcing the political undertone evident in Trump’s remarks.

When both leaders frame the conflict as one involving existential stakes and systemic dismantling of capabilities, it suggests a campaign designed to reshape strategic realities, not merely restore deterrence.

Tehran: no red lines

Iranian officials responded with equally uncompromising rhetoric.

Tehran described the US–Israeli assault as a "brutal air operation" and a "violation of the UN Charter". vowing to defend its sovereignty. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of Iran’s parliamentary National Security Committee, said: "There is no red line in our response to the enemy, and we will make it regret its actions."

A senior Iranian official warned that "all American and Israeli assets and interests in the region have become legitimate targets", while other figures suggested the confrontation could become a "war of attrition".

The language signals not rapid de-escalation but readiness for sustained retaliation across multiple theatres.

Iran’s initial response, targeting US-linked sites across the Gulf and triggering explosions reported in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and near the US consulate in Erbil, demonstrates a willingness to widen the geographic scope of the conflict.

Whether it can sustain such operations over time is an open question, but its leadership is publicly preparing domestic and regional audiences for endurance rather than compromise.

In a video posted on social media, IRGC General Ibrahim Jabbari directly warned the US, saying: "Trump should know that we launched missiles today from the depths of our stockpiles. Soon, we will reveal weapons you have never seen before."

How could this escalate?

Further escalation could take several forms.

Horizontally, the conflict could widen geographically. Iran-aligned actors in Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen could intensify attacks on Israeli or US interests, while maritime tensions in the Gulf, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, could disrupt global energy flows and draw in additional international actors. Iran could also begin to target Israel directly, as it did in the so-called twelve-day war in June last year.

Vertically, escalation could involve deeper or repeated US-Israeli strikes on hardened nuclear sites, expanded targeting of senior military leadership, or large-scale cyber operations against critical infrastructure.

If initial strikes fail to achieve their stated objectives, pressure to intensify operations may grow.

There is also the risk of miscalculation. With multiple state and non-state actors involved, and public rhetoric raising stakes on all sides, signalling becomes harder to interpret. Actions intended as limited deterrence can be read as existential threats, prompting further retaliation.

Taken together, the rhetoric of the US, Israel, and Iran suggests that this confrontation is being framed in systemic terms.

Some analysts believe Trump could be bluffing in his rhetoric to force Iran into a total capitulation in negotiations over its nuclear and missile programme. 

Whether it remains confined to military infrastructure or evolves into a broader struggle over regional order, and potentially political transformation inside Iran, will shape whether the war proves short-lived or prolonged.