Relations between Iran and Israel are deteriorating rapidly, with comparisons being drawn to Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be advocating for regime change in Tehran, reportedly encouraging the United States to take military action. Donald Trump, who previously came close to authorising a strike, is now said to be more cautious – mindful of the risks of exposing American forces abroad and being drawn into another protracted conflict, contrary to the non-interventionist platform on which he was elected. The Iranian regime, built on a foundation of resistance, is responding to Israel’s attacks while also expanding its network of regional proxies, which now extends as far as South America and east Africa. Iran is believed to be only weeks away from producing weapons-grade uranium, meaning that failure to institute regime change may lead Tehran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions – particularly if tensions are eased while the current regime remains in power.
Russia, meanwhile, has positioned itself as a strategic disruptor. By maintaining dialogue with both Tehran and Jerusalem, Moscow retains influence over developments without aligning itself fully with either side. Although it has refrained from supplying Iran with its most advanced military technology, its ambiguous stance offers it significant leverage. While global energy prices have thus far remained stable, the possibility of disruption cannot be discounted. Cautious but alert, the Gulf states are keen to avoid direct involvement. The broader question now facing the international community is whether diplomacy can contain the crisis – or whether the region is edging closer to a far more serious and destabilising confrontation.
To discuss the conflict, Freddy Gray speaks to Owen Matthews and Charlie Gammell.
