Will Israel's conflict with Iran draw in the US?

Australia Broadcast Center

15-06-2025

Sam Hawley: Benjamin Netanyahu insists his sweeping attacks on Iran are a necessity to protect Israel from a nuclear holocaust. But why has the Israeli leader decided to strike now and what is his ultimate aim? Today, Hussein Ibish from the Arab Gulf States Institute on the risk of a further escalation and America being drawn into the conflict. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily.
News report: After weeks of threats, explosions across Iran.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: Moments ago Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival.
News report: Israel striking what it says were dozens of Iranian military and nuclear sites as well as key officials and scientists.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. This is a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival.
News report: Explosions and plumes of smoke have filled the Tel Aviv skyline as a barrage of retaliatory strikes rains down.
News report: The Israeli government has said that it expects this offensive is going to ramp up and continue perhaps for as long as two weeks.
Sam Hawley: Hussein, this is the most fierce fighting between Israel and Iran in decades. Do we describe it as a war at this point?
Hussein Ibish: Yeah, definitely it's a war. It's the first war between Israel and Iran ever. Those two countries had never exchanged direct kinetic military blows before last year when they had more limited missile strikes against each other. In this case, it seems to be with the Israelis hitting the Iranians as hard as possible and then something like that in return. The Israelis appear to be trying to strike Iran with some form of a knockout blow. Although how they would calculate the success or failure, what the metric is for that is not yet clear. But it's definitely a war. Now, it's the kind of war that's very much in the modern era. This is a war that isn't likely to involve ground forces. This is a war that's going to be conducted by air.
Sam Hawley: Well, Rising Lion, which is what the Israelis have dubbed this operation, it's pretty sophisticated, isn't it? Not many militaries could pull something like this off.
Hussein Ibish: No, I think that's right. I think it is sophisticated. I mean, first, it's sophisticated in terms of targeting and accuracy. They are able to hit the targets they want to hit with more accuracy than most militaries could dream of having. And so that's one aspect. And another aspect is not only can they hit what they want to hit, they know what to hit in Iran. A lot of times, countries would have a general sense of, well, there's this buildup here and there's this installation there, but we don't really have the details there. In the case of Israel and Iran, I think that's not the case.
Sam Hawley: So they have, of course, Israel damaged Iran's nuclear facilities. I guess the question, Hussein, is can Israel actually destroy Iran's nuclear program? Is that actually possible?
Hussein Ibish: Well, the working assumption until now has been probably not. And I'm not sure we've seen anything that changes our minds on that. I mean, the general sense, my sense, certainly, going into this was Israel could give Iran a bloody nose, possibly a few broken bones, and really harm the nuclear program and do great damage to it, but not kick it back, say, 20 years, not make it so badly damaged that it's non-functional for a generation. And I think my sense was the United States had the bunker-buster capabilities to do that, and to do it in a few days through round-the-clock bombing with huge-scale conventional weapons. The U.S. has not given these in large numbers to Israel or anybody else. So the question is, is Israeli intelligence so sophisticated and thoroughgoing? And is their capability just barely sufficient to carry them over the threshold? And I have to say I'd be surprised. I think the Israeli plan must be either to force the Iranians into a humiliating and damaging agreement with the United States that renders it non-nuclear for a generation or two, or to instigate regime change in Iran. The idea is to force a still robust elite in Iran to say, these guys, this Islamic Republic crew, has mishandled Persian national interests that has a 6,000-year history so badly. They've got to go or be radically reformed in ways that will change policies and attitudes.
Sam Hawley: Benjamin Netanyahu, of course, in a video address, spoke directly to the Iranian people, saying this is your moment to overthrow this brutal regime.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: The time has come for you to unite around your flag and your historic legacy by standing up for your freedom from an evil and oppressive regime. Brave people of Iran, your light will defeat the darkness. I'm with you. The people of Israel are with you.
Hussein Ibish: Yeah, that's I think the Israeli hope, is that they could either engineer street-level unrest that's sufficient to bring down the regime or force radical change. And I think that's very unlikely. That really doesn't usually happen. Like a foreign power smashes up your national resources. And most Iranians agree with the nuclear program, by the way. It's not about the nature of the regime. This is something that Iranians generally feel deeply about. So I think it's unlikely that people will pour out into the street. The bigger target of Netanyahu and the Americans is the Iranian elite. And saying to them, you know, these people are mismanaging your national resources to the point of disaster. Do something about it.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Israel defied, of course, Donald Trump by launching this action. He had warned Benjamin Netanyahu not to do anything that could undermine the US nuclear talks with Iran, which are, of course, now off altogether.
Hussein Ibish: I wonder about that.
Sam Hawley: Well, what does his disregard for Trump tell us, if anything?
Hussein Ibish: Well, OK. So there are many ways of reading this. One is that, yeah, the administration didn't do anything in word or deed that is known to encourage Israel in doing this. But so there was no green light as such. Certainly nothing that is attributable. But there also was no red light. Trump has said he knew the date of the attack, which means he knew about it in advance. And he didn't go to the mat to stop it. He didn't tell the Israelis, if you do this, I will no longer talk to you, etc. In fact, he's been quite nice to the Israelis after this. Not endorsing it, but not condemning it either. So what the Americans are doing is what is known in American diplomatic circles as constructive ambiguity. That's what they call it. What they mean is that they've adopted a position that allows the Israelis to say, well, we have American backing. Because they haven't said no. And so, you know, we're still in good standing with Washington.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: This is what Israel is doing with the support, the clear support of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and the American people.
Hussein Ibish: And for the Iranians to be able to tell themselves and their own people that, well, the Americans have not been part of this. So if we do end up going back to negotiations with Washington, which they might, let me tell you, then it wouldn't be under duress. And the Americans, similarly, the neo-isolationists around Trump in the kind of fascist wing of his constituency led by Steve Bannon, could say, oh, good, he's staying out of this conflict. No more Middle East wars. Whereas the kind of pro-Israel faction that includes the religious right led by J.D. Vance and also the Jewish right wingers can say, oh, he's got Israel's back. Both readings are plausible.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Hussein, what are the risks now that this could escalate into a wider regional war? And who would be drawn into that if it did happen?
Hussein Ibish: There are serious risks, but the players who would join the Iranian camp are limited. When Bashar al-Assad fell, they lost the linchpin of their network. Everything centered around Syria was their one state ally, state level ally in the Arab world and in the Middle East. And the Turkish engineer downfall of al-Assad. But without Assad, it's these disparate gangs. So you've got the popular mobilization front groups in Iraq with their little missiles. You got the Houthis with the kind of dangerous stuff, but very limited they can do. And Hezbollah still exists in Lebanon. They may try to do some things, but Iran's reach now is going to be much more, I think, you know, restricted to what they can do themselves. And maybe the Houthis, possibly some missile strikes from Hezbollah. But I would look to Iranian proxies and sponsored groups and intelligence services to attack soft targets around the world. You know, engage in classical forms of terrorism that we generally haven't seen for a while. And, you know, so I would beef up security at Israeli and pro-Israel Jewish centers around the world. I would be very cautious. And I think the Iranian regime is of a mentality to do that and has the capabilities to do that.
Sam Hawley: Is there a chance America could be dragged into this, do you think?
Hussein Ibish: Of course, yes. If the Americans are attacked, they will respond directly. And maybe the biggest threat of that in Iraq, where there are these hot-headed militia groups that Iran has created but doesn't fully control. So you have all these different little groups, some of them bigger like Kata'ib Hezbollah and others that are larger and some of them small. And all of them armed and all of them hopping mad. And who knows who's saying what to whom. And there are lots of American targets around, lots of American military targets and American-related targets. So look to Iraq as one place that could happen. And, of course, the Houthis in Yemen have the capability of doing crazy and dangerous things with regard to shipping. But I think the Iranians, if they get that way, will have the U.S. not get dragged into this. And they will be trying to prevent adding Washington's power to the list of horribles they have to deal with. They don't need more firepower aimed at them right now.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Hussein, if nothing else, this does show us, doesn't it, that the world can change very slowly. But it can also change very, very quickly, particularly if there's a change or a shift in global power.
Hussein Ibish: Oh, yeah. Well, change generally happens in the blink of an eye. The Soviet Union is mighty superpower until it's gone. Apartheid in South Africa is immovable until Nelson Mandela is suddenly the president. Things that seem impossible, until they happen, they are far-fetched.
Sam Hawley: Hussein Ibsih is from the Arab Gulf States Institute, a Washington-based think tank. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.