1. Israel: The Engine of the War
The 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood operation and the sustained pressure from the Axis of Resistance shattered Israel’s deterrence posture and exposed the limitations of its air-defence architecture against Iranian missiles. What followed was not merely retaliation but a strategic decision—accelerated by far-right coalition politics and Netanyahu’s domestic legal crises—to escalate into a full-scale confrontation with Iran and, critically, to pull the United States into direct military involvement.
2. Washington’s Miscalculation
The United States entered the conflict betting on a swift, low-cost campaign that would exploit Iran’s internal vulnerabilities and reaffirm American dominance without the burden of prolonged engagement. That calculus collapsed. Iran’s resilience, its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the resulting global energy shock, and surging domestic inflation forced Trump to restrain escalation—particularly ruling out ground operations—and to pivot toward negotiation ahead of the US midterm elections.
3. Regime Change as Israel’s Non-Negotiable Objective
Where Washington sought containment, Jerusalem pursued elimination. Netanyahu’s government framed the war as a once-in-a-generation window to topple the Islamic Republic and permanently neutralise its nuclear and missile programmes. Israeli planners assessed that air strikes alone would be insufficient and signalled willingness to conduct ground operations. They further indicated readiness to act unilaterally should the United States withdraw, arguing that an intact Iranian regime constitutes a permanent existential threat.
4. The 17 June Memorandum: A Deal Israel Did Not Author
The US–Iranian memorandum of understanding prioritised the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for temporary nuclear constraints: a commitment against weapons development, negotiations over highly enriched uranium, and a 60-day freeze on enrichment expansion. Crucially, it did not mandate the removal of uranium stockpiles, the dismantling of enrichment infrastructure, limits on the missile programme, or the disbanding of Iran’s regional allies. Instead, it paved the way for phased sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets.
5. Israel’s Five Maximalist Demands
Netanyahu rejected the memorandum’s scope and articulated conditions far exceeding its terms:
Total removal of all enriched uranium from Iranian soil.
Complete dismantlement of enrichment capabilities and facilities.
Capping Iranian ballistic missile range at 300 km.
Full dissolution of the Axis of Resistance—Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah, and Iraqi factions.
Permanent, unconditional international oversight of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Israeli security establishments characterised the agreement as a dangerous strategic concession. The study’s author argues Trump traded Israeli security requirements for a diplomatic trophy ahead of the midterms.
6. Unilateral Escalation as Policy
Israel is expected to disregard the US–Iranian understanding and sustain independent military operations: precision strikes, cross-border special-forces missions, forward deployments, and targeted attacks on nuclear sites, missile-development facilities, and allied forces. Indicators already visible include Israel’s refusal to withdraw from southern Lebanon, official statements declaring the agreement non-binding on Israel, and continued strikes on Hezbollah post-announcement. A US–Iranian accord, therefore, neither ends the war nor prevents its recurrence.
7. The Cracking of the US–Israeli Strategic Consensus
The conflict laid bare a structural divergence: Trump’s “America First” pragmatism versus Israel’s “Security First” absolutism. Domestic US voices increasingly frame Israeli security demands as a strategic liability, particularly as Israel’s political alignment narrows to the Republican base while its standing with Democrats and liberal institutions deteriorates. Yet Israel’s irreplaceable value in intelligence, defence technology, and cybersecurity compels Washington to recalibrate rather than sever the alliance.
8. Iran’s Enhanced Position and the Persistence of Structural Conflict
Iran exited the confrontation with expanded regional influence, deepening the fundamental contradictions with Israel. Even a temporary Israeli pause would likely restore the pre-war pattern of confrontation, given unresolved disputes over the nuclear file, missiles, and the Axis of Resistance. The repeated failure of ceasefire frameworks in Gaza and Lebanon further undermines confidence that the US–Iranian understanding can produce durable stability.
9. The Erosion of American Security Credibility
Perhaps the war’s most consequential outcome is the degradation of trust in US security guarantees. Washington’s inability to deliver stable settlements is driving Middle Eastern states to reduce unilateral dependence on the United States, diversify strategic partnerships, and assert greater autonomy in their security architectures.
10. Two Trajectories of Regional Realignment
De-escalation diplomacy: Gulf states are pursuing direct channels with Tehran to insulate themselves from conflict risk—exemplified by the Qatari prime minister’s visit to Iran on 27 August.
New security architectures: The Mecca Mutual Defence Agreement (Saudi Arabia–Pakistan–Türkiye, 7 August) signals a move toward multilateral, non-US-centric defence frameworks.
Simultaneously, Israel is expected to deepen intelligence, security, and economic ties with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco while pushing to expand the Abraham Accords as a counterweight to Iran’s growing regional leverage.
Source: Wang Jian | Chinese Study, 30 October 2026 | Zeinab Al Saffar