Washington: US media outlets are increasingly drawing comparisons to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, highlighting a series of victories by Israel against Iran. These narratives often depict Israel as launching successful attacks on Iran, targeting its top leadership and nuclear scientists. In the context of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government’s campaign in Gaza, these strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a decisive move against Tehran.

According to TRTworld.com, Israel, unlike other states in the region, possesses nuclear weapons and receives advanced weaponry from Washington, along with protection from sophisticated American air defenses. If the US were to formally join this ongoing conflict, the repercussions could be far more destabilizing than many in the West anticipate. Should the US intervene, Iran’s weakened regional allies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah, could reactivate, stretching US capacity across multiple fronts.

Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst and former advisor to President Vladimir Putin, notes that while Iran is currently fending off Israeli attacks, direct US involvement could lead Tehran to lose ground. Markov points out the uncertainty surrounding the conflict, particularly due to the improbability of a US ground invasion and the unpredictable reaction of Iranian society. Parts of the Iranian population hold radical views and are prepared to fight.

Matthew Bryza, a former US diplomat, doubts that President Trump would order a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, citing the American public’s lack of appetite for new foreign interventions. Instead, Bryza envisions a more limited operation involving targeted strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, alongside continued support for Israeli air campaigns. However, nuclear analysts warn that bombing Fordow might not significantly delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

James Acton, a director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that military action is unlikely to be definitive. If the US and Israel continue down this path, hoping for regime change or a popular uprising in Tehran, they risk a prolonged conflict with no guarantee of political transformation. Bryza suggests that if the current regime remains, it could block the Strait of Hormuz and resort to hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets.

Andreas Krieg warns that a US-led strike could trigger a global oil shock, particularly if Iran attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Such a conflict could disrupt global supply chains and empower revisionist actors like Russia and China. Domestically, Trump’s Iran war ambitions are causing discord within his MAGA base, with figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson questioning the wisdom of war with Iran.

Bryza highlights that a war with Iran could provoke a political backlash among Trump’s supporters, who are largely anti-interventionist. While Trump may not be deterred, believing his base will follow him, a significant public backlash could arise if an Iranian missile strike results in American casualties. This scenario could present a major political liability for Trump and the Republican Party.