Behind closed doors at the Mar-a-Lago resort, history appears to be rewritten through deals whose details remain undisclosed, yet whose reverberations are already echoing from the alleys of Gaza to the protest-filled streets of Tehran. The meeting between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu was far from a routine encounter; it marked the starting signal for a comprehensive re-engineering of the Middle East. At its core lies the convergence of Israel’s ambition to “neutralise” the Iranian nuclear threat and Trump’s desire to seal the Gaza file as his greatest political triumph.
Between massive F-15IA fighter jet deals, the re-emergence of monarchist chants in Iran, and the rise of Starlink as a new weapon in the hands of protesters, are we witnessing a replay of the 2003 Iraq scenario? Or does Tehran still hold a “last card” capable of setting the entire region ablaze?
In practical terms, the specifics of what was agreed upon at Mar-a-Lago between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remain unknown. Yet the outcomes are already taking shape. It appears that the meeting yielded a green light for Israel regarding Iran—its primary regional obsession, due to Tehran’s persistent pursuit of its first nuclear bomb—in exchange for Israel’s consent to implement the second phase of the Gaza agreement, which represents the pinnacle of Trump’s claimed victories.
The available indicators point clearly in this direction. Immediately after the meeting, Trump announced that mid-January would witness the declaration of the launch of the second phase of the Gaza agreement. On the ground, concrete steps have already begun to rebuild the Strip quietly, without public announcements or a clear contractual framework. The Qatar Fund for Development confirmed the resumption of operations at Hamad Hospital in northern Gaza, alongside the opening of a new branch in southern Gaza—despite Israel’s previous objections to Doha’s mediating role with Hamas. Even within the Israeli military establishment, statements by Defence Minister Yoav Gallant opposing the second phase prior to the disarmament of the resistance and the recovery of the last hostage’s body have largely subsided.
On the other side, the stage was being set for a momentous development. Even before the Mar-a-Lago meeting concluded, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Boeing an $8.6 billion contract to produce 25 F-15IA fighter jets for Israel, with an option for an additional 25 aircraft. The Pentagon noted that $840 million in Foreign Military Sales funds had been allocated to initiate the contract. Israeli military leaders had long sought this deal to preserve Israel’s air superiority in light of a potential Saudi F-35 acquisition.
Meanwhile, in Iran—the other party to this implicit bargain—the domestic arena appeared primed for upheaval. A crushing economic crisis, exacerbated by ongoing sanctions and intensified after the twelve-day war waged last year by Israel and the United States, combined with severe water shortages affecting Tehran and major cities following an unprecedented drought. The sharp devaluation of the national currency further compounded public hardship. These conditions ignited mass protests, the most intense in three years, initially led by merchants and later joined by university students. Government facilities were attacked, clashes with security forces erupted, and dozens were killed or injured.
Unlike the 2009 protests, when President Barack Obama refrained from intervention and adopted a neutral stance to avoid giving Tehran a pretext to label the demonstrations as foreign-backed, Trump stunned Iranians by issuing a direct and forceful message to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a statement posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump declared: “If Iran violently fires on and kills peaceful protesters, as it has done in the past, the United States will intervene to help them.” He emphasised that U.S. forces were on full alert and ready for immediate action, concluding with a curt address to the public: “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Although such statements can be framed as blatant foreign interference—evoking Iran’s collective memory of the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh that restored the Shah—this historical precedent lends credibility to the regime’s accusations of U.S. and Israeli involvement in fomenting unrest. The narrative is not fabricated from thin air; it draws upon a deeply ingrained historical trauma that continues to resonate.
Yet what lies ahead may indeed mirror the past. Preparations appear to be underway for an alternative should the religious regime collapse under the weight of current events. As protesters poured into Iran’s streets this week, chanting in fury against the Supreme Leader and venting frustration over economic collapse, a slogan once deemed politically unspeakable resurfaced. Videos smuggled out of Iran showed demonstrators openly chanting in support of the Pahlavi dynasty—exiled since the fall of the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—alongside calls to overthrow the Islamic Republic. For a system founded on dismantling the monarchy and erasing the Pahlavi legacy, such chants represent an existential threat, signalling that anger has transcended economic grievances and morphed into a rejection of the Islamic Republic itself.
For Israel, however, the dilemma is even more acute. Jerusalem would undoubtedly welcome a different regime in Tehran—one that does not funnel resources to Hezbollah, Hamas, and ballistic missiles aimed at Israeli cities. Yet direct Israeli involvement is fraught with danger. Netanyahu articulated this cautiously in a recent interview with Newsmax, stating that change in Iran “must come from within.”
As Tel Aviv argues, sanctions alone are insufficient to bring down the regime; they must be reinforced by technical support for protesters. This includes ensuring internet access through censorship-circumvention tools such as Psiphon and satellite communication systems like Starlink, enabling demonstrators to counter the regime’s ability to isolate them, coordinate repression, and control public narratives. Another strategy involves targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—not necessarily through military action, but via precision sanctions: naming provincial IRGC and Basij commanders who order live fire or mass arrests, freezing their overseas assets, and restricting their travel. The objective is to undermine the regime’s capacity for repression by raising the personal and institutional costs for those who execute it.
If this is indeed the path Israel intends to pursue, in coordination with the Trump administration, to engineer regime change in Iran, Tehran still retains one final card: igniting the region by launching missile attacks against Israel or U.S. targets at sea and on land, including in the Gulf. Such a scenario would plunge the region into a spectacle hauntingly reminiscent of the Iraq War.
Prof. Hatem Sadek – Helwan University
