Media: Trump's pro-Israel stance risks escalating Middle East tensions

President Donald Trump’s re-election, coupled with his staunch pro-Israel stance, could further complicate the situation, potentially drawing the United States into the conflict and altering its dynamics entirely.

Elon Musk, a close adviser to Trump and a tech billionaire, met last week with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in what was seen as an initial effort to ease tensions between Tehran and the incoming US administration, Caliber.Az, reports per The New York Times.

However, Trump is expected to steer US foreign policy further in Israel’s favour, stacking his cabinet with hardliners on Iran. This could shift the balance in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel, taking the conflict into new and uncharted territory.

Nearly a month has passed since Israel launched a series of strikes involving over 100 jets and drones targeting Iranian military installations, yet the world remains on edge, waiting for Iran’s response. This uneasy pause marks a pivotal moment in the high-stakes conflict between these two Middle Eastern powers, following a series of military escalations this year.

The most recent flare-up began with Iran’s missile strike on Israel in early October. On October 1, Iran launched more than 180 missiles, many of which were intercepted, in retaliation for the deaths of senior Hezbollah and Hamas leaders. Israel’s response, however, took over three weeks, suggesting a deliberate and measured approach to the escalating crisis.

This escalation followed an earlier incident in April, when Iran responded to an attack on one of its diplomatic compounds by firing at least 300 missiles and drones directly at Israel. Despite the scale of the assault, Israel delayed its retaliation, contradicting earlier expectations of an immediate and widespread conflict should direct hostilities break out.

Experts point to diplomatic efforts from international actors, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which have likely played a crucial role in de-escalating the situation. These behind-the-scenes negotiations may have helped prevent a full-scale war, despite both Israel and Iran’s ongoing provocations.

Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East Director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, highlighted that while both sides have carried out targeted military strikes, the looming threat of a broader regional war remains ever-present. “The nature of the attacks seems to indicate a shared understanding of the risks of an even deeper conflict, which both sides likely want to avoid,” he noted. However, he also cautioned that the situation could quickly spiral out of control, with Israel potentially escalating further through a series of smaller, strategic strikes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned that Israel could intensify its military campaign if Iran were to strike again, stating, “Every day, Israel gets stronger.” His statement signals a readiness to ramp up military operations and extend the conflict, potentially targeting more Iranian assets in the future.

The strikes carried out by both Israel and Iran differ significantly from the concept of "shock and awe" warfare, first used during the 1991 Gulf War. The overwhelming application of force to destroy an enemy’s military capabilities, as seen in the 2003 Iraq invasion, seems less applicable in the current context. Analysts argue that the challenges posed by modern warfare—marked by the increasing use of autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence—render traditional shock and awe tactics less viable today.

That said, some experts argue that Israel’s military strategy, which includes precision strikes and psychological operations, represents an evolving form of this approach. Israel’s attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon, which targeted communication systems to instill widespread fear, is seen as a modern iteration of shock and awe tactics.

While the conflict remains contained for now, its future remains uncertain. Analysts suggest that both Israel and Iran are carefully calibrating their responses to avoid further escalation. Assaf Orion, a former Israeli brigadier general, explained that both nations are engaged in a "deterrence calculus," each testing the other to determine how far they can push without igniting a wider war.

Domestically, the conflict has provided both Israel and Iran with an opportunity to solidify political power. For Iran, the missile strikes are intended to demonstrate to the public that the government is responding to Israel’s military actions. However, experts note that while Iran’s missile strikes carry a powerful message, they are calculated to avoid triggering a broader conflict. “Iran is trying to have the last word,” said Iranian politics analyst Farzan Sabet, “but it doesn’t want to escalate.”

The stakes remain high. While neither side has yet escalated to an all-out war, both continue to target proxy forces. Israel has significantly increased its attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas, resulting in devastating casualties, including over 43,000 deaths in Gaza and more than 3,300 in Lebanon since October 8, 2023, due to Israeli retaliation.

Yet Iran has so far been spared direct military confrontation. As the situation unfolds, many analysts fear that any misstep by either side could have catastrophic consequences, not only for the region but for the world.

The situation is fragile, and although both Israel and Iran are fully aware of the risks involved in triggering a wider conflict, it remains uncertain how long they can maintain this delicate balance. The next moves could prove decisive in shaping the future security landscape of the region.

By Aghakazim Guliyev