The Future of Iran, Israel and the United States: Too Soon to Say

Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.

---

1. What to watch for in the coming days and weeks

Iranian expats are celebrating in the streets of London and Los Angeles; Israeli families are running to their bomb shelters; Americans are trying to figure out how this all ends.

The Israeli-American attack on Iran that began early Saturday morning could easily fall under the category of “shock and awe,” a multi-pronged precision assault on Iran’s military and political leadership, coupled with broad attacks on military and government installations across the country. 

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead, as are most of the Islamic Republic’s top office-holders. But the dust, literally, has yet to settle. Experts, former government and military officials, politicians and pundits have been filling the airwaves since Saturday with educated guesses as to where this major Middle East war is heading, but they, too, really have no idea. So here are a few pointers to watch for in the near future, in order to get a better sense of whether the Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is about to go down in history as one of the greatest moments of the region, or will end as another Iraq-style failed intervention.

– Regime change: Are there signs the Ayatollah regime is crumbling? As of now, there aren’t many indications that this is happening. The killing of Khamenei triggered a succession process that is ongoing but so far hasn’t triggered any infighting within the regime (or what’s left of it). There are no signs of mass defections in the military or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, nor has there been a massive outpouring of opposition protesters aiming to take over the government. Regime change is the ultimate goal of the United States and Israel and would mark a clear successful end to the war. But the process has yet to gain momentum.

– Negotiations: Speaking to The Atlantic on Saturday, Trump threw out the idea of switching gears and entering into negotiations with Iran. “They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” he said, refusing to say when the talks will take place and with whom. This sounds like a preliminary proposal, and it is not clear who would be the “new leadership” of Iran Trump would be speaking with, but it is a path worth watching. A negotiated deal with a much-weakened Iran could be the off-ramp Trump needs and could set the conditions for ending the conflict.

– Continued strikes: Then there’s the possibility of continuing American and Israeli strikes for a longer period of time. Trump even mentioned the possibility of going at it for another 4-5 weeks. A prolonged military campaign would be aimed at eroding the regime’s power in order to allow an opposition takeover, but would—naturally—be more susceptible to miscalculations and incidents that could drag America into an endless military involvement.

– American patience: This may be the key factor. Everyone loves a swift and painless military campaign, but that’s not usually how it works. The United States has already suffered casualties, oil prices are trending upward, and the American public is beginning to understand the price of this war. (According to a recent CNN poll only 41 percent of Americans approve of the decision to launch war against Iran; 59 percent oppose.) How long does Trump have? The clock is ticking, and if news from the various fronts, including U.S. bases in the region, turns more troubling, the American public will lose its patience and signal to the administration that it’s time to end the conflict.

2. Unprecedented cooperation

There are some aspects of this war that are already clear, and one of them is the level of cooperation between the United States and Israel. There’s nothing new, of course, about the fact that these two nations are close allies and that their military and intelligence branches are closely coordinated. 

But Saturday’s attack took this cooperation to an unprecedented level. First, the planning. Throughout the past two months, Israelis and Americans shared plans, exchanged ideas and made sure both sides were on the same page. Netanyahu visited Trump twice, top Israeli military leaders traveled to Washington to coordinate with the Pentagon, and the commander of CENTCOM made visits to Israel to meet with his counterparts.

The result, as seen on February 28, was an orchestrated joint operation, with the two military forces dividing the missions and coordinating in a complicated battlefield. U.S. refueling tankers helped Israeli fighter jets, Israeli forces made way for American missiles and airstrikes and, most significantly, both sides shared the highly sensitive intelligence information that allowed for the surprise attack that took out Iran’s top leaders.

The success of the operation is a testament to the decades-long close relationship between the two military forces, but it is also a sign that both leaders, Trump and Netanyahu, were in full and complete agreement about the goals of the attack and the means to achieve these goals. This does not necessarily mean that differences won’t pop up down the road, especially when it comes to the exit plan, but for now, the two countries are on the same page, on all levels.

3. A political dilemma

The joint attack on Iran highlighted once again the “horseshoe effect” of American politics—the point at which the far left and far right are more closely aligned to each other than they are to the political middle. 

For the far right, especially those in the isolationist stream of the MAGA movement, the war with Iran should never have happened. America, they believe, should take care of its own needs, not of those of faraway nations in the already troubled Middle East. For the far left, the conclusion is similar even if the reasoning differs. They don’t trust Trump and view his actions as a colonialist move aimed solely at oppressing other nations for the sake of U.S. dominance.

The center of the political map faces more of a dilemma.

Centrist Republicans showered praise on Trump for his bold move, repeating the White House talking points about the horrors of the Iranian regime and the threat it posed to America. But deep inside, they are still haunted by the memories of Iraq and Afghanistan and are cautious about being branded as a new generation of neocons.

Democrats in the center face a different problem. They hate everything Trump does, and more importantly are outraged by the fact that he embarked on a full-scale war without consulting with Congress and with no War Powers Resolution. However, as angry as they are at Trump, they share with him the clear sense that Iran is a dangerous player in the region and that its regime, which has just killed more than 30,000 protesters, must go. 

It is a shaky coalition of diverging interests, but one that indicates that the Iran war does not enjoy broad support. As is the case with any move of this kind, if the war turns out to be successful, all these worries and complaints will be set aside. But if it goes wrong, you can expect all sides to draw on their early reservations about the move and claim they were against the war from the get-go.

4. Jewish orgs split along ideological lines

The same political split has played out in recent days within the Jewish organizational world. 

AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby known for its hawkish line, was full of praise. “Thank you ⁦@POTUS⁩ ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩ for working together with Israel toward peace, security, and stability across the Middle East,” the group posted on X after news broke of the assassination of Khamenei. The Anti-Defamation League had a similar message of support, as did the American Jewish Committee, which noted that “when the threat of the Iranian regime’s illicit nuclear and missile programs, along with the IRGC, is dismantled once and for all, the world will be a safer place.”

But moving further left, the enthusiasm made way for skepticism.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America chose a nuanced tone—on the one hand, acknowledging that “the Iranian regime has oppressed and killed its own people, and is responsible for the murders of Americans, Israelis, and Jews around the world,” while at the same time criticizing Trump for not seeking congressional approval. “The American people, including Jewish Americans, have no reason to trust that President Trump has a strategy to ensure a secure and stable Middle East,” the group warned.

J Street, the left-leaning lobby, expressed opposition to the attack in a strongly worded statement. “We are appalled by President Trump’s reckless decision to launch a war of choice against Iran explicitly seeking regime change,” J Street’s statement read. While condemning the Islamic Republic’s malign activity, the group noted that “Iran does not present an imminent threat that requires launching a ‘preventive’ war.”

Both sides in this Jewish divide are taking a risk. Those wholeheartedly backing Trump and Netanyahu’s move might come to regret endorsing a war that may result in a Middle East quagmire, and the groups strongly opposing the war could end up seeming out of step if the military campaign ends with a free, democratic and peaceful Iran.

5. Keeping Israel out of it

But the greatest risk knows no political boundaries. The chance of a failed war that will cost American lives and fortune carries great danger for the future of American-Israeli relations.

If the war goes sour, all will search for a scapegoat, and it will be Israel. The claim that Israel dragged the United States into fighting its war, resonating decades-old antisemitic tropes, are already taking hold. Israel would be wise to make the distinction between its own actions and interests and those of the United States; the Trump administration could help by detailing to the American people why this war was for their safety and security, not for that of Israelis; and Jewish groups, as always, will have to tailor their messaging so that even the bigots, haters and isolationists understand that U.S. Jews who support the war do so because it will remove a risk to all Americans, not because they want American soldiers fighting for Israel’s security.

Extremists have tried in the past to blame Israel and its American supporters for the Iraq war. The claim was bogus and did not get much traction. Now, with a war in which both countries are fighting shoulder to shoulder, and in a climate of rising antisemitism, the danger seems greater.