The Iranian dilemma: What risks does a military operation against Iran pose for Israel and the US?

Prior to the recent get together betwixt Israeli undercoat government minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US chairwoman Donald Trump in the United States, Netanyahu’s office had indicated Israel’s intention to push for a broader Iran deal. Israel wanted the discussions to extend beyond nuclear issues and include limits on the development and testing of Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israeli officials emphasized that Iran’s missile capabilities pose a strategic threat comparable to potential nuclear risks and must not escape international oversight.

The news outlet Axios called this meeting “urgent.” According to a White House official cited by Axios, the visit was originally scheduled for February 18 but was moved up a week at the request of the Israeli side. This change signals Israel’s intention to influence the American negotiating position before it becomes institutionalized. Recent political discourse within Israel shows a determination to take advantage of the present “window of opportunity.” Many Israeli experts and politicians believe that a unique historical configuration has emerged both in regard to regional power dynamics and the US-Iran relationship. In this context, now is the best moment to exert pressure on Iran; Israel believes sanctions and political pressure should not be eased unless Tehran makes significant concessions. 

Importantly, the agenda is now a lot broader and encompasses more than just the ‘nuclear deal’. While officially, the main topic is the nuclear program, the debate centers around the broader framework for containing Iran and its role in the region. Israel argues that addressing only the nuclear issue without considering Iran’s missile technologies and its activity in the region will lead to an incomplete strategic solution. In private consultations with US officials, Israel has made it clear that it reserves the right to unilaterally act against Iran should it cross what it terms the “red line” regarding ballistic missiles. Israel is not merely concerned about Iran’s growing missile capabilities but about the establishment of a strategic arms configuration that could pose an existential threat to the Jewish state.  Consequently, Israel stresses that its freedom to act cannot be constrained by external frameworks when it comes to ensuring the nation’s survival.

To put it simply, Israel is sending a clear message to Washington: if the White House does not adopt a firm stance in negotiations with Tehran, Israel is prepared to act alone. Discussions about restricting technological supply chains are a way of preemptively legitimizing potential military actions against Iran, as part of a broader containment strategy. Should Israel decide to strike Iran, the latter’s response would likely be swift, compelling Washington to defend its sole ally in the region.

Israel no longer hides the fact that Iran’s nuclear program has never been its sole concern. In itself, if properly monitored, Iran’s nuclear program could serve peaceful purposes and may not necessarily lead to the development of nuclear weapons. So, stating that the nuclear issue is the only problem would be an oversimplification. For Israel, the problem is much broader: it includes Iran’s missile capabilities, regional influence, and support of allied forces. Initially, discussions centered on the nuclear aspect, but now Israel considers Iran’s ballistic missiles as the main threat.

For Iran, however, its missile program is a vital part of national security and its deterrent strategy. While different factions in Iran might reluctantly discuss limiting the nuclear program, the ballistic missile program is non-negotiable even among the more moderate politicians and reformists. Living under intense sanctions and lacking military parity with adversaries, Iran considers missiles one of the few available tools for maintaining strategic balance. Abandoning its missile program would severely undermine the country’s defense architecture.

This brings us to the central issue: the principle of reciprocity in negotiations. If we are talking about an equitable agreement (as the Trump administration tries to present it), why is it assumed that Iran should abandon its missile program, limit its regional influence, and rethink its defense strategy without requiring similar concessions from Israel? On what grounds should one side make significant sacrifices while the other retains full freedom of action? Without mutual commitments, the negotiation process inevitably feels like one-sided pressure.

Moreover, Israel is concerned about Iran’s support for regional actors, whom West Jerusalem views as proxy groups threatening its security. However, for Iran, the issue is far from secondary: its network of allies is integral to its influence. It’s unlikely that Iran would cut ties with its allies – this would mean voluntarily relinquishing its positions amid an ongoing confrontation and would further weaken the nation, which has already suffered a blow after the change in power in Syria at the end of 2024. 

Israel’s warnings about potential unilateral strikes serve not only as military signals but also as  means of pressuring Trump.  Israel aims to enforce the strictest parameters in future agreements while retaining room for military maneuvering. As noted earlier, Israel believes this moment is unique in history, and such an opportunity may not arise again. Meanwhile, Iran is steadfast in its refusal to give up its missile capabilities or cut ties with regional allies, viewing them as fundamental components of its national security.

We should also consider the regional implications. While the US and Israel might view the potential collapse of Iran as a military victory, nearly all the countries in the Middle East interpret this scenario in a different way. For them, it signals the start of a chain reaction: dismantling Iran could lead to increased pressure on Pakistan and Türkiye, jeopardizing the already fragile structure in the region. Netanyahu is relentlessly pushing for a hardline approach and expanding the military agenda, while Donald Trump remains cautious. For the White House, Iran isn’t another Iraq; rather, it is a crucial player in the global energy landscape. Even a limited “precision strike” could quickly escalate into a broader crisis affecting commodity markets. The risks extend far beyond regional tensions and threaten the stability of the global oil and gas trade.

The restraint demonstrated by the White House stems from a pragmatic approach. In recent years, Iran has significantly reduced its strategic isolation, which the West has been actively trying to enforce. Iran’s closer economic and military ties with China and Russia have fundamentally altered the balance of power: joint military exercises, synchronized political signals, and demonstrative maneuvers suggest that it won’t be possible to launch a quick and low-cost campaign against Iran. Consequently, the potential costs of intervention initially appear high. It is doubtful that Israel would be willing to engage in such a serious geopolitical gamble. Furthermore, it’s unclear whether the US wants to do the ‘dirty work’ for Israel, and if so, for what purpose. It seems that Trump will likely continue to issue verbal threats against Iran while relying on the backing of supporters who recognize the pitfalls associated with a direct confrontation. Meanwhile, Iran will try to buy time – after all, time has always played in favor of this nation with a 3,500-year history. 

---

---