The Middle East today stands at the edge of an unprecedented strategic rupture, with tensions between Iran and Israel intensifying from covert proxy confrontations to increasingly overt clashes. The Iranian strike on Israeli territory in April 2024—retaliation for the targeting of its consulate in Damascus—marked a critical turning point, shattering longstanding rules of engagement and compelling both regional and global actors to reassess their strategic calculus. Against this volatile backdrop, the United States, under the renewed leadership of Donald Trump following his return to the White House in January 2025, has reasserted itself as a central player—one focused not only on safeguarding Israeli security but on recalibrating the region’s geopolitical equilibrium through a realist, interest-based approach that sidelines normative considerations in favour of hard power calculations.
Trump’s current strategy draws heavily on the legacy of his first term, during which he relocated the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and launched the Abraham Accords. Yet beneath this continuity lie growing tensions. Recent investigations by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (June 2025) point to increasing friction between Trump and Netanyahu over the handling of the Iranian dossier and the Gaza conflict. In a markedly pragmatic shift, Trump announced on 13 June 2025 his intent to pursue a new nuclear deal with Iran, asserting that “Iran could become a valuable economic partner if it relinquishes its nuclear ambitions.” This statement reflects a transactional, calculated realism aimed at achieving regional stability while avoiding the pitfalls of military entanglement—consistent with the renewed doctrine of America First.
However, this orientation is anchored in three uncompromising imperatives: containing Iranian influence by strengthening Gulf alliances, particularly with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge; and advancing Arab-Israeli normalisation agreements to isolate Tehran regionally. In this context, The Wall Street Journal reports ongoing negotiations between Washington and Riyadh over a prospective mutual defence pact that would offer Saudi Arabia security guarantees in exchange for formal recognition of Israel. While this would mark a major strategic victory for Trump, it simultaneously raises Israeli concerns about the potential dilution of its strategic centrality—especially if rapprochement occurs between the United States and Tehran or its proxies, such as the Houthis in Yemen. Trump’s dual containment strategy, therefore, becomes a precarious balancing act—juggling competing alliances where each move risks estranging a key partner.
This external calculus intersects with significant domestic tensions in the United States. Trump’s polarising policies—from unwavering support for Israel to the reimposition of sweeping sanctions on Iran—have reignited protest movements across major American cities. As The New York Times reported on 11 June 2025, mass demonstrations in New York, Washington, and other urban centres have demanded an immediate suspension of military aid to Israel, decrying American complicity in fuelling Middle Eastern conflicts. These protests, uniting anti-war groups, human rights advocates, and the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party, pose growing domestic political risks for Trump—further complicating his regional ambitions and forcing him to navigate an increasingly divided American public sphere.
Simultaneously, the Iranian regime faces intensifying internal strain. The economic crisis caused by successive waves of Western sanctions has sparked widespread protests since 2022, steadily eroding the regime’s legitimacy and limiting its capacity for military escalation. According to Al-Bayan (10 June 2025), Tehran is deeply concerned about the potential return of a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign under Trump, which could force it to enter nuclear negotiations under terms largely dictated by Washington and Tel Aviv. Yet the Iranian leadership remains reluctant to concede, fearing the alienation of its ideological base and the erosion of its long-standing narrative of resistance. It thus attempts a precarious balancing act—maintaining its defiant rhetoric while cautiously probing diplomatic openings to avert total economic collapse.
Israel, too, faces a landscape marked by internal turbulence. The Netanyahu government continues to face widespread protests over controversial judicial reforms and its perceived failure to ensure lasting security in Gaza and along its northern border with Lebanon. Military analyst Amos Harel, writing in Haaretz (12 June 2025), observes that these protests have evolved into a deeper crisis of legitimacy for Netanyahu’s leadership, eroding Israel’s credibility among its allies and pressuring the Prime Minister to achieve quick military or political wins to stabilise his embattled right-wing coalition. In this context, escalation—whether against Iran, Hezbollah, or Gaza—serves as a convenient political tool, offering both a distraction from domestic discontent and a chance to reaffirm his authority.
Within this broader strategic theatre, recent reports suggest Israeli military operations may be linked to long-term plans for Gaza, most notably the controversial “Gaza Riviera” project. The Guardian (8 June 2025) details the proposal, which aims to transform Gaza into a demilitarised, Israeli-controlled zone, involving the displacement of large segments of the Palestinian population to neighbouring countries such as Egypt and Jordan under the guise of ‘post-conflict reconstruction.’ The plan, reportedly enjoying quiet support from elements of Israel’s far-right establishment, frames the escalation with Iran and its allies as a classic War of Distraction—designed to divert global attention from a profound demographic and geopolitical reengineering of Gaza’s future.
From this dense web of overlapping crises, several potential scenarios emerge. The first envisions a tentative de-escalation, facilitated by a provisional nuclear accord between Washington and Tehran, alongside a temporary ceasefire mediated by regional actors like Oman or Qatar. While such an outcome might briefly stabilise the region, it would likely leave core tensions unresolved, sowing the seeds for future conflict—especially if Israel deems the concessions to Iran inadequate. A second, more dangerous scenario anticipates a direct military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which could swiftly entangle Iranian and American forces—whether through deliberate escalation or strategic miscalculation. Although devastating, such a conflict could paradoxically prompt renewed diplomacy, as international stakeholders intervene to contain a wider regional war.
A third, more insidious scenario involves the continuation of low-intensity but sustained proxy conflicts across multiple theatres—Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza—allowing Israel to gradually advance its territorial and strategic objectives under the cover of distraction. In this scenario, the Gaza Riviera project would progress quietly while global focus remains fixed on the more visible Iran-Israel confrontation, enabling irreversible changes on the ground.
Each scenario underscores not only the volatility of regional politics but also the increasingly cynical use of conflict as a tool for regime survival and strategic recalibration.
The region thus approaches a critical juncture—not merely one of temporary escalation but of structural transformation. Under Trump, the United States seeks to construct a delicate equilibrium: upholding Israeli deterrence, managing Iranian ambitions, and reinforcing Gulf partnerships, all while contending with intensifying domestic dissent. The most likely trajectory points toward a temporary nuclear deal with Iran, tied to limits on its proxies, coupled with continued strategic backing for Israel—calibrated to avoid full-scale war. Concurrently, Tehran will try to preserve its revolutionary posture without courting ruinous conflict, while Netanyahu leverages escalation to distract from internal crises and pursue controversial territorial ambitions in Gaza. The essential question remains whether Trump can sustain this fragile, combustible balance before the region spirals into chaos. As always in Middle Eastern affairs, the answer will depend on whether key actors can step back from the brink—before it is too late.
Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and writer
