Israel’s escalating war on Iran has placed U.S. interests in an increasingly precarious position. The sixth round of already fragile nuclear talks, set to begin in Oman over the weekend, collapsed following a series of Israeli missile strikes last Friday that killed several senior nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders.

While the U.S. officially denies direct involvement, Trump’s open endorsement of the attacks and military assistance tells a different story. The question now is not simply whether Iran will bend to pressure, but whether Washington has fatally sabotaged the leverage it had left.

The Importance of Iran to Trump’s Regional Policy

Iran sits at the center of Trump’s foreign policy in West Asia, as it has reverberating effects across the entire region. This is not only in terms of direct engagement, but in shaping how the U.S. balances its broader regional alliances. The trajectory of Washington’s Iran policy influences everything from the extent to which the U.S. empowers Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states as counterweights, to how it positions itself in relation to actors within the Axis.

This is why Trump’s rigid stance on enrichment, what Iran considered a sovereign and strategic necessity, has proven so damaging. His most recent proposal, allowing uranium enrichment under tight U.S. and regional oversight for a limited time, was swiftly rejected by Iran’s leadership for undermining its technological sovereignty.

Tehran continues to defend its nuclear program as a vital umbrella industry fueling progress across energy, medicine, and scientific research.

For the West, diplomacy remains the only viable path to securing even partial alignment with its interests. But that requires accepting a fundamental reality: Iran is a permanent and powerful force in the region. It cannot be bypassed or dismantled; it must be negotiated with, and while there is still appetite for it– which is already diminishing.

Trump’s handling of Iran exposes the deeper incoherence of his foreign policy posture. What presents itself as a strategy is more often a patchwork of reactive decisions and contradictory instincts. Swaying between maximalist demands and impulsive withdrawals, the administration’s approach lacks a consistent guiding logic.

And now, with Israeli escalation and the collapse of nuclear talks, Trump may find himself in a volatile scenario- one largely of his own making.

A Strategic Miscalculation?

Green lighting Israel’s latest attack may have deepened the very fractures the U.S., and Israel, hoped to contain particularly in three critical areas.

1. Domestic Sentiments Harden

In response to the attack, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi cancelled the upcoming round of negotiations, declaring that talks cannot proceed under active aggression. The message was clear; Iran will not respond to force with submission.

In addition, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei announced that Iran is drafting legislation to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite maintaining its position against the development of nuclear weapons. This legislative shift, triggered by Israel’s assault further jeopardizes Trump’s interests, as it undermines the already fragile negotiation process. 

Domestically, Iranian public sentiment, once partially receptive to diplomatic engagement, is shifting toward confrontation. Popular calls for retaliatory strikes are growing louder, especially as Ayatollah Khamenei’s long-held skepticism of U.S.–Israeli intentions gains renewed traction. The strikes have effectively emboldened conservatives and pushed those favoring diplomacy closer to the margins.

Although Iran has pledged a “measured” response, leaving the door to negotiations slightly ajar, the path forward will be far more difficult. Trust, already fractured, will need to be rebuilt. And this time, Iran is unlikely to return to the table without demanding significant U.S. concessions.

By contrast, Israel faces rising domestic backlash; public exhaustion, mounting protests, and political instability over military conscription have already threatened to collapse its current cabinet.

2. Strategic Blowback: Israel Under Fire

Instead of forcing Iran to kneel, Israel’s offensive has triggered further escalation, allowing Iran to showcase its military reach and flaunt its capabilities. 

“We have no concerns about the war being prolonged. In the coming days, the world will witness what innovations Iran will bring to the field.” – IRGC Advisor General Ahmad Vahidi

Within days, Iran launched precision strikes on multiple strategic targets inside Israel, shattering the myth of invulnerability projected by its layered defense system. Haifa, Israel’s economic lifeline, was hit with attacks targeting major oil infrastructures, power stations, the Bazan Chemicals Complex, and the city’s refinery.

Strategic locations were also hit in Tel Aviv, multiple residential areas, and the Weizmann Institute south of the capital. Surrounding military bases, including the Nevatim airbase, were also struck. Many of these attacks were carried out by hypersonic missiles, capable of maneuvering, which makes interception extremely difficult.

With Haifa, home to Israel’s largest port, under sustained bombardment, and Israeli airspace closed, the country is facing a level of isolation unseen in decades. Repeated strikes have shaken the illusion of settler security, prompting strict media censorship and orders for citizens not to film or share videos, which indicates the psychological toll is mounting.

Meanwhile, in Iran, domestic support for the government seems to have risen with the population rallying behind the state in defiance of foreign bombardment.

Here, the strategic miscalculation may have been in assuming that Iran’s response would mirror the restrained tone of previous confrontations, such as Operations True Promise I and II, and in overestimating the Iranian public’s willingness to turn against its leadership under pressure. Netanyahu’s public call for the Iranian people to rise up against their government fell on deaf ears.

Instead of fuelling internal dissent, the strikes have fostered some level of unity, reinforced Iran’s posture of defiance, and handed the state a renewed sense of legitimacy in the face of perceived external aggression. In this, Israel and its allies may have inadvertently strengthened the very force they sought to weaken.

3. The Enemy Within; Exposing Collaborators, Iran’s Internal Test  

Perhaps the greatest problem for Iran is the one sprouting from within. A deeply entrenched Mossad network has been linked to numerous attacks launched from Iranian soil.

These attacks were carried out by agents and collaborators using surface-to-surface projectiles, suicide drones, car bombs and sabotage operations. Some reports even suggest that the vast majority of the strikes recently carried out were not by Israeli aircraft, but by covert operatives already embedded on Iranian soil.

Iran’s mountainous terrain, sophisticated weaponry and air defense systems make external penetration difficult. As a result, Israel appears to rely heavily on clandestine networks within the country to destabilize the Republic from inside.

The assassinations of senior Iranian figures including nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Ismail Haniyeh, high-ranking intelligence officials, and others, underscore the extent of this internal vulnerability. For Iran, this may be its Achilles’ heel.

Yet the war has also brought some of these hidden networks to the light. In the aftermath of Israel’s strikes, many sleeper cells were forced into action, inadvertently exposing their locations. Since the attack, Iran has been able to uncover many of these Mossad cells and foil their plots.

Iranian security forces have since uncovered and dismantled dozens of Mossad-linked operations. State media reported the seizure of 200kg of explosives, and the discovery of a drone production workshop in Shahe-e-Rey, in Tehran province, along with the arrests of dozens of Mossad agents. 

Once the dust settles, Iran’s post-war challenge will be just as much about internal security as external defense. Confronting the depth of Mossad’s infiltration will be central to any future effort to safeguard national stability. Whether Iran can effectively neutralize these networks remains one of the war’s most important unknowns. 

The (In)viability of Israel’s Strategy 

While Israel maintains clear superiority in intelligence gathering and aerial capabilities, its long-term strategy reveals underlying vulnerabilities. Israel’s current tactics reflect a recognition that its influence in the region cannot rely on military dominance alone.

Its small geographic size inherently limits its ability to project power. This is precisely why its occupation of strategic sites in Syria and Lebanon have become so central, as it serves as a way to artificially expand its leverage across the region.

Another fundamental challenge lies in stability. As Washington increasingly prioritizes economic investment and long-term security partnerships, Israel must appear stable. But the war on Gaza has already exposed major cracks in this image, and its confrontation with Iran has only deepened them.

Rather than demonstrating strength, these conflicts have undermined the image of invulnerability that Israel has long relied on; not only to attract U.S. support, but to reassure settlers whose presence underpins the state’s primary function.

For Israel, Iran and the Axis represents an existential threat, justifying its continued pursuit of an outdated policy of regime change. It’s threat to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei underscores this posture. Trump has added fuel to this narrative, stating that U.S. intelligence knows Ayatollah Khamenei’s location, but that he remains “safe for now.”

While not an outright threat, the implication aligns with regime change rhetoric; an approach that is both reckless and strategically short-sighted. Meanwhile, the conflicting statements from U.S. and Israeli officials, some confirming direct involvement, others denying any endorsement, suggest either internal discord between pro-regime change hawks and more cautious voices, or a deliberate campaign of psychological warfare aimed at destabilizing Iran.

At this crossroads, the U.S. must decide whether to double down on coercive tactics or adopt a more forward-looking strategy grounded in regional realities.

In weakening its perception of security and overextending itself militarily, Israel has begun to resemble a strategic liability rather than an indispensable partner. This is a reality the United States must confront, or it risks its own regional influence erode alongside it.

Force Fails, Reality Remains

Israel’s latest escalation, backed by Trump, was meant to pressure Iran into submission. Instead, it has exposed the limits of military coercion and deepened the region’s instability.

Far from yielding, Iran has already responded with force and strengthened domestic unity. For the U.S., continuing to bank on Israeli aggression risks strategic self-sabotage.

To truly secure its interests, Washington must abandon the illusion of total control and accept that concessions, not domination, are the price of relevance. Without this shift, which acknowledges Iran’s entrenched presence, Trump’s erratic, force-first approach will only leave the U.S. unable to adapt to a changing region.

While Iran now enjoys renewed momentum, it too must confront the internal threat posed by embedded collaborators. Its true test may come not on the battlefield, but in the quiet war within.