US Involvement Driven by Israeli War Aims?
Dr. Harsh Pant offered a direct analysis of American motives behind the dramatic Operation Midnight Hammer. “It has more to do with Israeli ambitions and Israeli war objectives,” he stated. “Once it was clear that without American help that would not happen, it was a matter of time before Americans intervened.”Pant argued that Israel’s urgency to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure aligned tightly with US willingness to act, despite President Trump’s previous aversion to foreign wars. “Leaving residual nuclear capability is no longer an option for both Israel and the US, particularly for Benjamin Netanyahu,” he added.
Oil at the Epicenter of Global Concerns
From the Strait of Hormuz to Wall Street, energy security emerged as the dominant theme. Nilesh Shah warned of immediate volatility: “Markets’ initial reaction will be negative, but ultimately it will look at availability of oil and price of oil to decide future direction.”
Prof. Sean Foley emphasised the global implications if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz—a move Tehran has hinted at. “This would impact Iranian oil exports, affect other Middle Eastern oil suppliers, and drive up oil prices globally—especially for countries like China and India,” he said.
Also Read: Before-and-after satellite images show damage to Iran’s nuclear sites in US-Israel strikes
Foley noted Iran’s strategy is likely one of leveraging threats to gain geopolitical ground, not necessarily immediate escalation: “In many ways, what they’re doing is the beginning of a threat—trying to get some leverage over the Americans.”
Israel: Existential Threat, Not Regime Change
Asher Fredman strongly rejected claims that Israel seeks regime change. “Israel’s goal is not regime change. It’s certainly not boots on the ground,” he said.
Instead, Fredman underscored what Israel views as an existential mission. “Iran developed its nuclear programme, its ballistic missile programme, and built proxies with hundreds of thousands of missiles on our borders,” he stated.
Also Read: The Iran war was in the making for last two years: Five escalation points
“We believe Iran had 2,500 ballistic missiles before the operation—it’s used 500, and Israel has eliminated about 500 more.” Fredman concluded, “We’re not there yet, but we are on our way.”
Legal, Regional, and Cultural Blind Spots
Waiel Awwad called the airstrikes a “violation of international law and the Geneva Convention,” and warned of potential retaliation on nuclear facilities in Israel. He stressed that such escalations place the region itself at greatest risk: “We as West Asians will be the first to pay the price of such an attack.”
Ambassador KC Singh pointed to the Middle East’s tactical diplomacy. “Gulf states can’t publicly support Iran, but privately, many are content with Iran’s nuclear option being removed,” he noted. Yet, he warned that Israel’s lack of a political “off-ramp” keeps the region dangerously on edge.
Dr. Deina Abdelkader offered a long-view perspective on the cultural knowledge gap driving Western missteps. “Fights in the Middle East last a long time because major powers do not have enough information about the region,” she said. Drawing parallels with Iraq, Abdelkader warned that today’s actions could “open the doors of disaster,” pulling in nations like China, North Korea, and destabilising global oil supplies through the Hormuz chokepoint.
