Andrey Zeltyn — on scenarios for the development of events and why Trump entered the Iran-Israel conflict
When, in recent interviews, devoted, of course, to the Iran-Israel war "from the air," I said that, in my opinion, Donald Trump was going to launch heavy aerial bombs at Iranian nuclear facilities, I secretly hoped that this would not happen. And indeed, didn't Trump repeatedly tell his constituents, the so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) group, that he was the "candidate of the world" ? So much for the candidate.
And yet, what went wrong in the peace agenda of the American president, who promised to end all wars once and for all?
How did it all start (or continued?)
On June 13, 2025, the Israeli Air Force launched the first strike against nuclear and military facilities in Iran. This is how Operation "People like a Lion" ("The Risen Lion") began. You can learn more about the history of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation in the TASS material. So what happened now? There are several points of view on the reasons for the escalation. Let's look at one of them.
After the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israel has been waging a war in the Gaza Strip with high intensity and heavy civilian casualties. It is quite difficult to assess the real losses, since the information comes from Hamas, which records all civilian losses, including militants. But it is clear that the losses are serious and that the military operation in Gaza has significantly undermined Israel's international position.
On this basis, Yoav Galant, who was dismissed from the post of Israeli Defense Minister, was at the center of a political scandal. Why was he fired? Because he called for a cease-fire in Gaza. The tension surrounding this dismissal foreshadowed another political crisis, quite capable of demolishing the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, the initial upsurge of the Israeli population to defend the country began to subside as it became obvious that the issue of hostages was being pushed into the background, yielding to the political ambitions of wartime. Recently, there has already been an attempt to dissolve the Knesset, which has become a serious signal to the ruling coalition. The Israeli Prime Minister was clearly not satisfied with the prospect of losing his chair as a result of the political crisis, as this made him vulnerable to accusations of negligence, which, according to some opinions, resulted in the tragedy of October 7.
There was a need to "refresh" the country's cohesion factor in the face of an external threat.
With Hezbollah almost surrendering, a team came to power in Syria that said it did not want to fight Israel, and the Ansar Allah group in Yemen concluded an agreement with the United States, there are not many options left. Or rather, just one. Iran.
And Netanyahu once again decided to use the Iranian threat and the need to combat it as a political argument to mobilize the population around the heroic leader who devoted his entire political career to fighting the Iranian enemy. At the same time, Netanyahu did not forget to draw attention to the fact that Iran threatens not only Israel, but also the United States, which is why he (Netanyahu) is fighting for the security of all progressive humanity.
It should be noted here that the Iranian leadership has practically put ironclad arguments in Netanyahu's mouth — for decades, the leadership in Tehran has used the slogans "death to Israel" and "death to America" in its political rhetoric (as the current American president recalled during his speech to the nation after the strike on Iran). The threat of developing nuclear weapons was spread to a certain extent even by Tehran itself, mistakenly believing that these rumors would become a deterrent in the plans of external opponents. It was supposed to come back like a boomerang sometime.
How it all went on
The main question of the last week, as I mentioned earlier, was whether the United States would take a direct part in the fighting. Accepted. Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan became targets of the American B2 and Tomahawk missiles. Now we can safely call the current Iran-Israel-US conflict. At the same time, despite the victorious speech by the US president following an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, the consequences remain at least vague.
First of all, there is no data on whether the nuclear facilities were critically hit. There is information that Iran has exported a stockpile of enriched uranium to an unknown destination. However, this information has also not been confirmed. Secondly, as at the beginning of the Israeli air campaign, the objectives of the operation are not clear. Netanyahu has made statements three times, and all three times he has not said what Israel's goals are. Trump, speaking after the strike on Iran, mostly talked about how great the US army is, which can do things that others cannot.
It can be assumed that the participants in the process would like to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program and achieve a change in the political regime in Tehran. Political observers, including American ones, have great doubts about the achievability of one scenario or another.
What's next?
I doubt that anyone can confidently answer this question. It is unlikely that the war will stop there, according to Trump. The question is what scenario events will follow.
So far, Iran has continued to launch ballistic missiles towards Israel. So he wasn't too scared. A representative of the Yemeni Ansar Allah group announced that the agreement with the United States was being reset and that the "heroes of resistance" would continue to shell American facilities (read: tankers passing through the strait). What will Iran do? The Velayat-e Fakih regime has suffered not only a serious military blow, but also a political slap in the face. And it is unlikely that Tehran will leave this issue unanswered. Tehran has options — a fully combat-ready army, a good defense industry, stocks of modern ballistic missiles, drones and, of course, an extensive network of proxies in neighboring countries. It is likely that Iran will start snapping not only at Israel, but also at "American interests" in the region. This means conducting military operations on the territory of neighboring countries where these "interests" are located.
In other words, the conflict will go beyond the borders of the two countries and may well lead to a full-scale regional armed confrontation.
There are about 40 thousand American troops in the Middle East, who may become the target of a retaliatory strike from Iran. If this happens, the United States, which has strengthened its grouping in the region, will respond with large-scale strikes against Iran, as Donald Trump warned about.
The United States clearly understands this, so they said they expect a large-scale response from Iran within 48 hours.
On the same rake?
I would like to quote from an article by Jonah Shepp in New York Magazine: "This is an amazing revival of an idea that has been completely and repeatedly discredited over the past quarter century. No matter how much Americans would like to bend the world to their will, our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria shows that U.S. attempts to overthrow and replace hostile foreign governments never lead to peaceful, stable democracies grateful for our liberation from authoritarian oppressors. How can one imagine that regime change in Iran will succeed? In a country with more than twice the population of Iraq or Afghanistan, with a thousand-year history of unwanted foreign interventions and a deeply entrenched complex political system?"
Obviously, the author's opinion, which I share, does not sound convincing enough in the White House. The historical experience is counterbalanced by the unconditional support of Israel by the 47th president of the United States, reinforced by Netanyahu's hypnotic influence on Trump. An experienced Israeli politician has clearly found the key to the American's heart and is actively dragging the latter into the military adventure that Israel has launched against Iran.
While these lines were being written
Immediately after the attacks on Fordo and other facilities in Iran, the United States began broadcasting rather strange signals.
In particular, Vice President J.D. Vance said that America is not at war with the people of Iran and its political leadership. And she is fighting the "nuclear threat." It's as if the "nuclear threat" is some kind of secret third force that arises on its own and lives a separate life.
And that's not all. After reports that the Iranian parliament had passed a resolution to close the Strait of Hormuz, Vance turned to China, asking it to "call Tehran" and persuade them not to close the oil transportation routes. The reasoning is simple: China receives large volumes of oil through the strait, so it is interested in ensuring that it (the strait) is not closed.
It's a strange story. Probably, the Trump administration immediately after the strike on Iran began to look for ways to de-escalate "on the side." Then why was it necessary to strike? Maybe, after all, the escalation was not primarily aimed at destroying nuclear facilities, but at creating conditions for regime change? Then the main goal of the United States in this conflict becomes obvious, as well as the fact that in this case the war in the Middle East will be long and ambiguous.
Andrey Zeltyn
Senior Lecturer at the School of Oriental Studies, Faculty of World Economics and World Politics, National Research University Higher School of Economics
