Peace in Middle East needs a phenomenal shift in Israel's approach

The US has stepped back from threats to destroy Iran and instead supported a two-week ceasefire reportedly proposed by Pakistan, on the condition that the Strait of Hormuz remains open. Pakistan has urged Iran to keep the waterway open, while President Donald Trump has indicated he is considering a reported 10-point Iranian peace plan as the basis for further negotiations.

Yet any move towards peace is unlikely to last unless Israel genuinely supports it. So far, Trump's handling of the conflict appears to have been shaped as much by Israeli pressure as by his stated desire for peace and the safe passage of commercial shipping through the Strait.

The US-Israel campaign has already had devastating consequences. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with senior leaders and commanders, is reported among the casualties, severely weakening the country's military and nuclear command structures. The opening strikes also reportedly killed 168 civilians, including 100 schoolchildren. Civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict.

Iran has responded with drone and missile strikes on financial centres, oil depots, and American interests across the region. Its closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global oil and gas supplies, placing fresh pressure on the world economy. Tehran has also reactivated proxy forces in Lebanon and Iraq. The escalation has reportedly created friction within the Trump administration, as the rising costs of war have put the US and its allies on the defensive.

While Trump's approach has shifted repeatedly as the costs of war mounted in both military and financial terms, Israel has shown far greater determination to continue striking Iran and Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. Although Trump initially threw American weight behind Israel, his oscillation between hawkish and dovish positions has raised doubts about whether Washington has the leverage to bring Israel to the negotiating table.

Following the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, Israel moved decisively to weaken what it saw as regional threats: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq, all of which have long drawn support from Iran. For Israel, Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional reach posed an existential threat. For the US, the threat was narrower, centred on American interests and its presence in the Middle East.

The latest US National Security Strategy places the Western Hemisphere first and China second as its strategic priorities, rather than the Middle East. Trump has also consistently expressed his aversion to prolonged military entanglements in the region. His earlier success with a rapid operation in Venezuela, and Israel's encouragement to apply a similar model to Iran, may have helped shape the decision to enter the conflict without extensive debate at home.

By contrast, Israel has shown little respect for ceasefires previously agreed in Lebanon and Gaza, continuing intermittent strikes that suggest both deep strategic anxiety and a preference for an open-ended conflict. If the trajectory of the war is any guide, Israel appears more willing than the US to bear the human and material costs of confronting what it sees as an imminent Iranian threat.

Some analysts argue that the decision to launch war with Iran was shaped during Benjamin Netanyahu's visits to the White House in early 2026. According to these reports, Netanyahu convinced Trump that regime change in Tehran was achievable through the removal of key figures. The US, which has had an adversarial relationship with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the embassy hostage crisis, long treated Israel as a regional counterweight to Iranian influence.

Washington also cultivated security relationships with Gulf states to preserve its regional position and contain Tehran. Over time, however, Israel increasingly appears to have drawn the US into its own territorial ambitions and regional score-settling. Until June 2025, Washington had avoided direct attacks on Iran itself, focusing instead on Iranian proxies and Revolutionary Guard commanders operating elsewhere in the region.

The assassination of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, in Iraq on January 3, 2020, was a notable example. Iran's forward-defence strategy had largely shielded its mainland from direct attack. But once Israel intensified its regional campaign after the Hamas attacks, the US was persuaded to complement that strategy.

Israel's resolve and Trump's oscillation

Israel's influence in Washington may now be stronger than Washington's influence in Tel Aviv, if the conduct of the war is any guide. It is plausible that Israel persuaded Trump of the immediacy of the Iranian nuclear threat.