Trigger of conflict
ON JUNE 13, 2025, just as the sixth round of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran over Tehran鈥檚 nuclear programme was set to begin, Israel launched a massive, unprovoked military assault on Iran鈥檚 nuclear and military installations. The attack was conducted with full intelligence and logistical support from the United States, marking a significant escalation in the long-standing tension between Iran and the US-Israel alliance. Iran鈥檚 retaliatory strikes were swift, setting the stage for a broader regional conflict.
This confrontation has not emerged in a vacuum. Since the end of the Iraq war in 2003, Israel has repeatedly pressured the United States to take military action against Iran鈥檚 nuclear facilities, claiming that Tehran was about to develop a nuclear bomb. Yet, more than two decades later, Iran has not weaponised its nuclear programme, questioning the motivations behind this attack.
听
Nuclear double standards
A CRITICAL factor in this conflict is a glaring disparity in how the international community treats Iran and Israel鈥檚 nuclear programmes.
Iran鈥檚 nuclear programme: Subject to strict monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency; a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which mandates non-proliferation and allows peaceful nuclear energy use; and despite compliance with inspections, Iran has faced relentless sanctions and threats.
Israel鈥檚 nuclear programme: Not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, refusing IAEA oversight; widely believed to possess 80鈥�150 nuclear warheads, yet never subjected to international scrutiny; and the United States and western powers have never demanded transparency from Israel, showcasing a clear double standard.
This hypocrisy has fuelled regional instability, with Iran arguing that it is being unfairly targeted while Israel operates with impunity.
听
Failed diplomacy and path to war
From April 16 to June 13, the United States and Iran engaged in five rounds of indirect negotiations. The negotiations did not produce results because of sticking points on either side. The key sticking points were:
US demands: Iran must dismantle its uranium enrichment programme; surrender control of its ballistic missile development; and permanent US oversight of its nuclear activities.
Iran鈥檚 stance: it insisted that its nuclear programme was exclusively for peaceful purposes; it refused to negotiate on sovereign defence capabilities; and accused the US of regime-change ambitions.
President Donald Trump, known for his 鈥榤aximum pressure鈥� strategy, issued a 60-day ultimatum for Iran to comply. When Tehran refused, Israel鈥檚 attack commenced precisely on the 61st day, suggesting a premeditated US-Israeli strategy to force Iran into submission through war.
听
Indirect engagement, direct consequences
UNLIKE the 2003 Iraq war, where the United States and the United Kingdom were aggressors, this conflict began with Israel as the primary aggressor, backed by US intelligence, weapons and logistical support. This approach allowed the United States to avoid an immediate direct involvement, adhering to Trump鈥檚 campaign promise of 鈥榥o new wars,鈥� shield US military assets in the Middle East from becoming immediate Iranian targets and test Iran鈥檚 retaliatory capabilities before committing American troops. However, as Iran鈥檚 counterstrikes demonstrate greater-than-expected reach and precision, the likelihood of US direct intervention is increasing. The Pentagon has already deployed additional troops and warships to the Persian Gulf, placed regional bases on high alert and prepared for potential airstrikes on Iranian infrastructure.
听
Escalation scenario
Should the United States enter the conflict with full military force, the war could expand in several dangerous directions: regional spillover and multi-front warfare; Hezbollah, Houthis and Iraqi militias could intensify attacks on US and Israeli targets; Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, could be dragged into the conflict, either as US allies or as secondary targets; and Turkey and Pakistan might be forced to take side, further destabilising the Middle East and South Asia.
Economic warfare: Iran could blockade the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting 20 per cent of the world鈥檚 oil supply; oil prices would skyrocket, triggering a global economic crisis; and Russia and China could bypass US sanctions, deepening the divide between western and eastern blocs.
Great power Involvement: Russia has already supplied Iran with advanced air defence systems (S-400) and could provide direct military support; China, dependent on Middle Eastern oil, may intervene diplomatically or economically to counter US dominance; and a proxy war between NATO and Russia-China could emerge, resembling cold war-era conflicts.
Humanitarian catastrophe: civilian casualties would surge as urban centres become battlegrounds; refugee crises would overwhelm neighbouring countries; and the war could last for years, draining US and regional resources.
听
Global implications
THIS war risks turning the Middle East into a de facto US-Israeli protectorate, with Arab nations losing foreign policy autonomy and decline in Chinese and Russian influence in the region. The United States could aim to strengthen military hegemony, but at the cost of long-term resentment. Importantly, the radicalisation of populations toward vengeful act and fuelling future asymmetric resistance.
The US-Israel and Iran war is not just a regional conflict. It is a geopolitical turning point. If the United States commits ground troops, the war could become another Afghanistan or Iraq, but with far greater global repercussions.
As military tension escalates, diplomatic solutions appear increasingly distant. The world watches anxiously, knowing that once the first American soldier sets foot in Iran, there may be no turning back. The question remains: is this a war that the United States can afford or the one that it cannot afford to lose?
听
Mohammad Abdur Razzak ([email protected]), a retired commodore of Bangladesh navy, is a security analyst.