As Netanyahu presses forward, world powers remain hesitant. The fate of the Middle East – and the global order – may hang in the balance.
– Mohammed Affan
With tensions between Israel and Iran nearing a breaking point, a critical diplomatic push by the E3 – Germany, France, and the United Kingdom – may offer a narrow but credible path to de-escalation. As Israel-Iran tensions intensify, a renewed diplomatic effort by the trio – could open a limited but credible avenue to defuse the crisis.
As Israeli missiles rain down on Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites and Iran retaliations with drones and its ballistic missiles, the world is holding its breath – not because we know where this war is going, but because we don’t. In the fog of this sudden and dangerous escalation between Israel and Iran, one question overshadows all others: What is the endgame?
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the answer appears to be convoluted – and disturbingly open-ended. He claims this war is a pre-emptive strike to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But others suggest a deeper, more personal motive: a decades-long vision to dismantle Iran’s regional influence and perhaps even forceful regime change in Tehran – all while distracting from his corruption trials at home.
Either way, the consequences are being felt far beyond the skies of Tehran and Tel Aviv.
The Nuclear Justification – Again
Netanyahu’s primary justification for this war is not new. As the U.S. Army officer Harrison Mann recently noted in Zeteo News, “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was about to produce nuclear bombs – which he’s been warning since the 90s.” This time, he claims Iran was nearing enough enriched uranium for nine nuclear warheads – a number neither independently confirmed nor accepted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
While the IAEA recently noted a “significant rise” in Iranian uranium enrichment, it explicitly stated in March this year that there was no evidence that Tehran had restarted a weapons programme. In fact, earlier this year, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence reaffirmed that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
So why now?
The answer, however, may lie less in Iran’s uranium stockpile and more in Netanyahu’s strategic blending of personal ambition and ideological warfare – seeking both a regime change in Iran and a reset of his public image – both domestically and globally.
A Strategic Pattern of Undermining Diplomacy
Netanyahu’s record reveals a familiar pattern: derail negotiations, escalate tension, then drag allies into intervening. He fiercely opposed the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and is now attempting to corner the Trump administration into abandoning even limited diplomatic engagement. While President Trump has shown reluctance to involve the U.S. directly in another Middle Eastern conflict, Netanyahu appears to be doing everything in his power to provoke American intervention – leveraging political pressure and regional escalation to force Washington’s hand.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy didn’t mince words and warned that Israel’s actions risk a “regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America” and demonstrate how little respect some allies now have for Washington’s leadership. Echoing similar concerns, Senator Bernie Sanders has asserted that Netanyahu effectively initiated the conflict by targeting Iran – including the assassination of Ali Shamkhani, Tehran’s lead nuclear negotiator – in what he describes as a deliberate effort to sabotage ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. Sanders cautioned that the United States must not be dragged into “another illegal Netanyahu war,” either militarily or financially.
The Global Chessboard: Who Joins, Who Watches?
As the war intensifies, global powers are treading carefully and rethinking what’s at stake in a region.
- United States: President Donald Trump’s initial reluctance to involve the U.S. in Israel’s war against Iran has notably shifted into active consideration of support – driven largely by Israel’s early military successes. Known for aligning with perceived victors, Trump’s change in posture appears fuelled by a classic case of “FOMO” (Fear of Missing Out) on a potential strategic win.
In the process, Trump has reportedly sidelined his National Security Advisor, Tulsi Gabbard, after she expressed concerns Israel’s aggressive military approach and highlighted intelligence assessments that Iran is still at least three years away from producing a nuclear weapon. Gabbard’s stance aligned with internal briefings from the U.S. intelligence community, which recommended restraint and a diplomatic track.
Within Trump’s cabinet, deep divisions have surfaced. MAGA hardliners like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have strongly opposed direct military engagement, warning of long-term blowback. In response, Trump has temporarily paused any direct military action, granting a two-week window for diplomacy – a move seen as a tactical hedge amid growing domestic pressure and electoral calculations.
- European Union: The European Union has maintained a balanced yet cautious stance, reaffirming Israel’s right to self-defence while simultaneously urging restraint and diplomatic de-escalation.
In a bid to cool rising tensions and prevent a broader regional conflict, the E3 countries – Germany, France, and the UK – are set to meet Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, in Geneva on June 20. The goal of the meeting is to secure firm and verifiable guarantees that Iran’s nuclear programme remains exclusively civilian.
Although the United States is not directly attending, the meeting is reportedly backed and coordinated with Washington, reflecting a joint Western effort to avoid open war while applying strategic pressure on Tehran.
The EU’s diplomatic push marks one of the few structured channels of dialogue still open, as most backdoor talks between Iran and Israel have collapsed. Brussels continues to emphasise that a military solution would only escalate regional instability and risk a humanitarian catastrophe across the Middle East.
- Russia: Moscow condemned Israel’s actions and accused the U.S. of enabling escalation. While unlikely to enter the war directly, Russia could help Tehran with more military hardware and diplomatic protection at the UN.
- China: Beijing is watching closely and balancing its economic ties with Iran and its global ambitions. Though unlikely to offer direct military support, China may work behind the scenes to prevent a full-scale war that could disrupt oil flows and global trade.
The United Nations has yet to find a way forward, as disagreements among key members will continue to stall any meaningful response.
Iran’s Response: Calibrated but Hardening
Iran has so far responded with strategic restraint – targeting Israeli military and intelligence facilities. But this may change if the USA decides to join with Israel that will escalate this war further, particularly if it attempts to destroy the Fordow nuclear site, a site located deep underground.
Iran may turn to its network of regional allies – Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq – as tensions rise and the risk of broader spill-over grows.
The Endgames: All Risk, No Reward?
Several scenarios now loom on the horizon:
- Diplomatic De-escalation: A likely scenario that would require extraordinary coordination among the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and potentially Russia or China.
- Limited Containment: The most likely short-term outcome – tit-for-tat strikes without total war could go on for now.
- Regional Escalation: A nightmare scenario that could draw in multiple actors, including U.S. military bases in the region, trigger attacks on Gulf oil infrastructure, and potentially lead to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – a vital chokepoint for global energy supply. Such developments would carry severe economic consequences worldwide, from soaring oil prices to supply chain disruptions.
- Strategic Sabotage: Assassinations of political, religious leaders and military officials, cyberattacks, and regional destabilisation without open warfare.
- Regime Change Campaign: Prime Minister Netanyahu’s most perilous ambition appears to be an undeclared regime change campaign targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader and other strategic leadership roles. Israeli strikes targeting IRGC bases, nuclear facilities, and political infrastructure point out the effort to dismantle the core of Iran’s power structure – drawing parallels to past U.S.-led regime-change campaigns.
But with no clear exit strategy and pushback from within Israel’s own defence establishment, Netanyahu’s high-stakes gamble risks creating a dangerous power vacuum – one more likely to be filled with chaos than stability.
At the same time, Russia and China are expected to resist efforts by western-aligned powers to reshape Tehran, potentially escalating into a wider Cold War–style standoff.
- Nuclear Flashpoint: If the red lines are crossed – real or perceived, the conflict could quickly escalate in dangerous and unpredictable ways.
- Full-Scale U.S. Intervention: A growing possibility where a major American military intervenes if key regional interests or allies are directly threatened. Such a move could mirror aspects of past U.S. engagements in the Middle East, including large-scale deployments, extended occupation, and significant civilian impact. Critics warn this path risks repeating patterns seen in Iraq – including the use of disputed intelligence, widespread instability, and long-term humanitarian consequences.
A Responsibility Greater Than Strategy
Whether this war is about nuclear non-proliferation, geopolitical reordering, or domestic distraction, one fact is clear: there is no coherent Israeli exit strategy. And unless the United States and the United Nations intervene meaningfully – not just with statements, but with action – this war could become the defining global crisis of the decade. The longer Netanyahu wages this war without limits, the more likely it is that the world will be dragged into it. And once it becomes global, there may be no winning endgame for anyone.
History offers sobering warnings. Regime change rarely produces stable outcomes in the Middle East. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Yemen, toppling governments without clear post-conflict plans has led to sectarian warfare, militant chaos, and foreign power entrenchment. Iran, with its engrained ideology and regional reach, risks becoming the epicentre of a far broader collapse.
The Diplomatic Path Forward: Halting Attacks, Engaging and Preventing Regional Instability
A successful diplomatic resolution will depend on both sides halting further escalation which includes the Israeli airstrikes and Iran’s subsequent reactions. Engaging with Iran once more through mechanisms that recognise its security concerns and regional role, as well as addressing the international community’s concerns about nuclear proliferation.
The re-opening of provisions of the 2015 nuclear agreement, including new assurances, reciprocal compliance, may help to restore confidence and serve as the basis of negotiations. Neutral third parties like Oman and Qatar would be well-positioned to conduct regional deconfliction negotiations, especially in critical areas like Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.
Crucially, diplomacy must move beyond isolation and punitive measures; instead, it should offer Iran a stake in regional stability in return for restraint. This approach would require western powers to remain flexible and recognise that excluding Iran from future Middle East security arrangements could undermine long-term stability.
[Mohammed Affan is an Indian Student in his final year of graduation in Political Science and International Relations from Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Istanbul]
