The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to deteriorate, de facto annexation of Palestinian territory proceeds all the while the U.S. embrace of the agreement signals American endorsement of this negative status quo. Rather than advancing American interests by promoting peace in the region, the U.S. is helping cement conflict under the guise of forging reconciliation between three countries that never have been at war.
Yet things can get even worse. At a time when the U.S. should be reducing its military footprint in the region, the accord could bring America back into war in the Middle East by lowering the bar for Israeli military action against Iran. Any military confrontation between Israel and Iran will likely suck in the U.S. as well. As the Quincy Institute's Steven Simon wrote in his June brief on the subject, the risk of the accord playing this destabilizing role is particularly acute if talks to revive the Iran nuclear agreement collapse.
Moreover, the accord undermines prospects of finding true peace in the region between Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of Israel was always a means to an end — not an end in and of itself. The accord flipped this on its head and offered recognition without any movement on the Israeli-Palestinian front, further reducing Israel's incentives to compromise with the Palestinians. Not surprisingly, all the countries who have signed onto the accord have either done this under duress or due to American — not Israeli — concessions on other matters.
Sudan was coerced into signing on lest it wouldn't get off the U.S. terror list. Morocco was offered a major shift on the U.S. position on West Sahara. The UAE was offered F35 fighter jets — advanced American weaponry the Emiratis want in order to bind Washington to the security of their authoritarian state. None of these trade-offs do anything to bring peace to the Middle East, nor do they, in the final analysis, advance U.S. national security.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Washington DC, USA - September 15, 2020: Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, and Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan attend the Abraham Accords ceremony in The White House. (noamgalai/shutterstock)
Top photo credit: Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran speaking at an event hosted by the Center for Political Thought & Leadership at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
The Middle East is a region where history rarely repeats itself exactly, but often rhymes in ways that are both tragic and absurd.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current Israeli campaign against Iran. A campaign that, beneath its stated aims of dismantling Iran's nuclear and defense capabilities, harbors a deeper, more outlandish ambition: the hope that toppling the regime could install a friendly government under Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last Shah. Perhaps even paving the way for a monarchical restoration.
This is not a policy officially declared in Jerusalem or Washington, but it lingers in the background of Israel’s actions and its overt calls for Iranians to “stand up” to the Islamic Republic. In April 2023, Pahlavi was hosted in Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
During the carefully choreographed visit, he prayed at the Western Wall, while avoiding the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount just above and made no effort to meet with Palestinian leaders. An analysis from the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs described the trip as a message that Israel recognizes Pahlavi as "the main leader of the Iranian opposition."
Figures like Gila Gamliel, a former minister of intelligence in the Israeli government, have openly called for regime change, declaring last year that a "window of opportunity has opened to overthrow the regime."
What might have been dismissed as a diplomatic gambit has, in the context of the current air war, been elevated into a strategic bet that military pressure can create the conditions for a political outcome of Israel's choosing.
The irony is hard to overstate. It was foreign intervention that set the stage for the current enmity. In 1953, a CIA/MI6 coup overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s last democratically elected leader. While the plot was triggered by his nationalization of the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the United States joined out of Cold War paranoia, fearing the crisis would allow Iran's powerful communist party to seize power and align the country with the Soviet Union.
The coup reinstalled the Shah, whose autocratic rule and dependence on the West bred a potent mix of anti-imperialist sentiment and religious fervor.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution, in its own way, was a delayed reaction to 1953, a radical assertion of national sovereignty over foreign interests. Now, Israel and the U.S. seem to believe that a new foreign-backed intervention could be the solution to a problem the last one helped create.
Since June 12, Israel’s military campaign has gone beyond targeting nuclear facilities. Strikes have hit state institutions and state television headquarters. In its most symbolic attack yet, Israel also struck Evin Prison, the primary site for jailing political opponents.
President Trump on Monday announced that an agreement had been brokered between Iran and Israel to stop the fighting, a ceasefire that as of this writing, was still largely unconfirmed. It came hours after Iran had launched a limited attack on the U.S. base in Qatar,. The missiles were intercepted and no injuries were reported.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly framed the conflict as a pathway to liberation for Iranians. Operation Rising Lion, the name given to the air assault, is itself a nod to Iran’s pre-revolutionary flag, a symbolic gesture toward the monarchy’s legacy.
“As we achieve our objective,” Netanyahu said in a video address to the Iranian people, “we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom.”
For all the talk of regime change, however, there is little clarity about what, or who, should come next. Publicly, Israeli officials insist the Iranian people will choose their own leaders. Yet their public embrace of Iran's exiled crown prince tells a different story.
Reza Pahlavi has spent decades cultivating an image as a democratic statesman-in-waiting. In interviews, he speaks of a future decided by a popular referendum, backed by detailed proposals like a 100-day transition plan. To Israel's delight, his alignment extends beyond symbolism to the core of Israeli strategic thinking.
During his 2023 visit to Tel Aviv, he articulated the very logic driving Israel’s current attacks against Iran, dismissing nuclear negotiations as a “waste of time” and insisting that the “quickest way to eliminate all threats” was to invest in an alternative to the regime itself.
Moreover, he envisions a future rooted in what he calls the “Cyrus Accords,” a revival of the ‘ancient friendship’ between the Persian and Jewish peoples, a vision reinforced by powerful personal gestures, such as his daughter’s recent marriage to a Jewish-American businessman.
But this vision, compelling as it may be in D.C and Jerusalem, is almost entirely detached from Iranian realities. For many critics, even within the fragmented opposition, this democratic messaging is a calculated strategy to rehabilitate the monarchy’s image and position Pahlavi as the only viable successor.
His high-profile meetings with foreign leaders—most notably in Israel—and his calls for Western support are seen not as statecraft for a future democracy, but as efforts to secure foreign backing for his own return to power.
The Pahlavi name remains tainted for many by memories of SAVAK torture chambers, lavish corruption, and dependence on foreign powers for viability. While dissent against the Islamic Republic is widespread, slogans from the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests — sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in custody over the mandatory hijab — reveal a deep-seated rejection of both autocracies with chants like, “Death to the oppressor, be it the Shah or the Leader.”
The monarchy Israel hints at reviving was not merely overthrown in 1979, it was actively rejected by a powerful coalition of Islamists, leftists, and nationalists united against the Shah’s repression. This legacy of popular rejection severely curbs Reza Pahlavi’s appeal today.
While opinion pieces in Israeli mediaframe the choice for Iran as one between chaos and a restored monarchy, Pahlavi commands little tangible support inside a country where many see his movement as “opportunistic” and “disconnected from the Iranian people.”
For Israel to imagine a different outcome in Iran is to ignore the region’s bitterest truths. From the sectarian carnage of post-Saddam Iraq to the militia-ruled wastelands that now scar Libya, Yemen, the last two decades have taught the brutal lesson that foreign-imposed regime change does not produce compliant allies, but rather vacuums filled by extremists, proxy wars, and humanitarian catastrophes.
It is this painfully learned lesson that drove the Arab Gulf states pivot to diplomacy with former rivals like Iran.
The Israeli hope that airstrikes and assassinations are “creating the conditions” for the Iranian people to “rise up,” as Netanyahu stated, is not only ahistorical—it is dangerous.
Even among Iran’s opposition, there is deep skepticism about foreign intervention. As exiled activists have told Western media, Iranians want to topple their leaders themselves, they do not want a “made-up state” or a new regime imposed by outsiders.
In addition, the fantasy that a successor regime in Tehran would be inherently friendly to Israel ignores deep-seated suspicion embedded through decades of conflict, propaganda, and animosity now being cemented by overt foreign intervention. Even Reza Pahlavi, if somehow installed, would likely face immense pressure to distance himself from any perception of being ‘Israel’s man in Iran.’
Israel’s campaign may weaken the Islamic Republic, but it cannot conjure a new, friendly Iran from the ashes, least of all by championing a successor from a fallen dynasty that Iranians have long since rejected.
In the end, the future of Iran should be decided not in Jerusalem or Washington, but by Iranians themselves — on their own terms, in their own time.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speak during a Ukraine security meeting at the 6th European Political Community summit on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS
The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.
The statement by the E3, signed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron, following similar statements by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and its high representative for foreign affairs Kaja Kallas, perfectly encapsulates this surrender.
The European trio affirmed their support for the security of Israel — and only Israel, as if other nations in the Middle East weren’t entitled to security. They repeated the rhetoric that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon” and endorsed the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities despite the numerous conclusions of both the IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community (IC) that Iran is presently, or at least before Saturday’s attack, not working on weaponizing its nuclear program.
In truly Orwellian fashion, the E3 called on Tehran to “engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program” — despite the fact that Iran was literally engaged in those very negotiations with the E3’s foreign ministers on Friday, the day before the U.S. strike — as it was preparing to continue negotiations with the U.S. in Oman before Israel launched the war a week before. In fact, Israel’s brazen decision to sabotage U.S.–Iranian diplomacy is precisely the evidence that, contrary to what the E3 now imply, Iran has engaged in talks seriously enough to make the prospect of concluding a new deal realistic.
The timing of the U.S. strikes — coming after diplomatic efforts by E3 and Iran — makes a mockery of the E3’s assertions that the onus is now on Tehran for renewing the talks. It prompted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to ask: “how can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up”?
Even more damning is the EU’s refusal to acknowledge what former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt forthrightly stated: the U.S. attack was a clear-cut violation of international law. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent attack or with Security Council authorization — neither of which applied in this case. Yet the current EU leadership, so vocal in condemning Russia’s breaches of Ukraine’s sovereignty, remains conspicuously mute when Washington or Jerusalem does the same.
This hypocrisy does more than expose EU moral posturing — it actively erodes the foundations of international law and the much-vaunted “rules-based international order.” By legitimizing the "right of the mighty" to wage preventive wars, the EU fatally undermines Ukraine’s cause and sets a precedent that its adversaries are certain to exploit. If preventive strikes are permissible for the U.S. and Israel, why not for Russia, China, or any other power claiming a "threat"? Why should nations of the Global South rally behind Kyiv’s appeals to the U.N. Charter when Europe itself excuses blatant breaches by Western powers?
Worse, this vassalization of Europe is proving strategically useless. No evidence that the Trump administration even bothered to warn its European "allies" in advance of its attack on Iran has yet come to light, a damning indication, if borne out, of the contempt the Trump administration holds for its main European NATO allies which then rush willy-nilly to defend Washington’s flagrant violations of international law.
The timing couldn’t be more conspicuous. Days before a critical NATO summit, this episode confirms what sober observers already knew: Europe’s servility earns neither respect nor reciprocity from Washington. The Trump administration’s apparent failure to consult the E3 — despite their ongoing diplomatic engagement with Iran — proves that U.S. policymakers view Europe not as partners, but as lackeys to be ignored at will. This dynamic poisons the atmosphere ahead of NATO’s meeting, where European leaders will once again appeal for “transatlantic unity” while accepting their role as Washington’s junior subordinates.
But the deeper tragedy is that Europe’s leaders have internalized their own subordination. They betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience — a habit that weakens Europe’s global standing while emboldening Washington’s and Jerusalem’s worst impulses. This is one of the big differences with the run-up to the last big U.S. war of choice. Back then, leaders of France and Germany had the backbone and foresight to oppose George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Fast forward to 2025, and Germany’s neoconservative chancellor Merz enthusiastically endorses Israel’s illegal attacks on Iran as the necessary “dirty work” performed on behalf of the “West.”
The expanding war in the Middle East should be a wake-up call: given Europe’s geographical proximity to the Middle East, the spillover effects in terms of possible new migration flows, terrorist threats, and energy shocks that would be massively destabilizing for Europe. Given the stakes, if Europe won’t assert its interests now, when will it? When Washington and Jerusalem unilaterally drag it into another endless Middle Eastern war? When the next illegal strike hits a third country? Vassalage doesn’t pay — it only degrades.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit:A man reads a newspaper at a newsstand, amid the Israel-Iran conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The United States has finally entered Israel’s escalating war against Iran, launching targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to obliterate Tehran’s nuclear threat, a goal once more effectively achieved through the 2015 Iran deal.
President Trump warned Iran that there will be peace or a tragedy far greater than what Iran has witnessed in recent days, signaling that there were “other targets” if Iran wished to escalate.
Yet even this one-ended strike may not fully eradicate Iran’s indigenous nuclear capabilities. It certainly hasn’t ended Iran’s attacks on Israel, and now opens up risks to American troops and assets in the region. In fact, Iran’s possible responses from here on are varied and unpredictable. But we know the costs — particularly economic — are escalating, and could be devastating for all parties involved and worldwide.
Israel is already bearing massive economic costs. Estimates suggest that a month-long war could cost Israel around $12 billion, with daily military expenses averaging $725 million. If Iran targets more civilian infrastructure, these costs could escalate sharply.
Over 5,000 Israelis have already been evacuated from their homes due to missile strikes. Labor shortages are worsening as tens of thousands of reservists, many from critical high-tech and industrial sectors, are mobilized. By the end of 2024, the Gaza war had already drained Israel of over $67.5 billion, excluding significant civilian and infrastructure damages and broader economic losses, which remain difficult to quantify.
A swift military victory might mitigate some economic impacts, but a prolonged war could severely impair Israel’s economic growth, strain fiscal stability, and potentially harm its international credit rating.
Even before the Israel strikes, Iran faced a daunting infrastructure crisis, urgently needing over $500 billion in investments to address critical economic shortfalls exacerbated by U.S. sanctions. Israeli attacks have deepened this crisis, destroying vital civilian and energy infrastructure. The direct costs of reconstruction alone could reach tens of billions of dollars, adding enormous strain to Iran’s already battered economy and limited fiscal resources.
My estimate draws on the latest 2023 Iranian household expenditure survey, revealing that over 80% of Iranians fail to meet the 2,100-calorie daily requirement and suffer from food insecurity. A prolonged war would only exacerbate this humanitarian crisis, pushing the country toward a potential national catastrophe.
Iran could retaliate by launching cyberattacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, such as power grids, water systems, pipelines, financial networks, and other essential services. The economic consequences of such cyber retaliation could range from hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollars.
Further, if Iran targets energy infrastructure in the Gulf states or blocks the Strait of Hormuz, it could disrupt over 20% of global oil and LNG supplies, potentially driving oil prices to as high as $150 per barrel. A Bloomberg analysis warns that sustained prices at this level could shrink global GDP by nearly $1 trillion annually, fueling global stagflation. For the United States, this would severely undermine efforts to control inflation and economic stability.
Netanyahu’s ambition to topple Iran’s regime is unlikely to succeed without direct U.S. involvement, including the deployment of hundreds of thousands of ground troops. If Washington intervenes in this way, it risks plunging itself into yet another open-ended war, requiring another $2 trillion to $3 trillion and thousands of lives lost.
Even if Israel achieves its immediate military aims by decapitating Iranian leadership, neutralizing military capabilities, and potentially fracturing Iran without Tehran’s painful retaliation, such a victory would likely prove hollow. The resulting chaos would unleash waves of insurgency, refugee crises, and regional instability surpassing the turmoil that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Given the decentralized nature of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), even a fragmented Iran could remain a persistent threat. Remaining IRGC forces and proxies could continue attacks against Western and Arab economic targets across the region, imposing ongoing risks to American interests and causing substantial losses for U.S. allies.
The regional economic fallout could be existential for Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. Due to rising tensions, the IMF has already revised its 2025 economic growth forecast for the region from 4% down to 2.6%. A sustained two-to-three-year decline in growth, coupled with vanished foreign direct investment and delayed mega-projects critical to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, could cost these economies anywhere between $730 billion and $1 trillion.
As one Gulf official noted, a prolonged conflict could erase years of economic progress by disrupting national development strategies and severely damaging investor confidence. The appearance of a fragmented Iran might seem advantageous at first glance, but the ripple effects would ultimately burden U.S. taxpayers and businesses, drawing America into an extended regional quagmire.
If Israel’s military campaign fails, Tehran will likely emerge emboldened, not weakened. Already, Israeli attacks appear to have fueled Iranian public support for nuclear armament, potentially paving Iran’s path toward a nuclear weapon.
Despite its heavy cost, Iran retains the right under Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to withdraw, allowing it to restart its nuclear program without oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Such a scenario would likely trigger a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation across the region and beyond, from Berlin and Warsaw to Ankara, and from Riyadh to Seoul and Tokyo, unraveling decades of non-proliferation efforts.
Imagine a nuclear-armed Middle East, with European and East Asian nations scrambling to develop their own deterrents. What began as a targeted Israeli strike could spiral into a global security nightmare. The economic implications would be staggering: higher energy prices, soaring insurance premiums, investor uncertainty, and massive military build-ups, all severely undermining American strategic and economic interests.
A new arms race extending from the Gulf to the Pacific could destabilize the global economy and dramatically weaken America’s strategic posture. No American president, not even during the Cold War, has ever had to confront the simultaneous unraveling of the global nuclear order across multiple continents. President Trump would inevitably be the first.
It is unclear whether the Trump Administration could even restart the talks after this weekend’s strikes. But rather than sinking billions into another costly war, Washington could offer sanctions relief and regional economic engagement in exchange for Iran returning to strict compliance at lower levels of enrichment than those prescribed by the 2015 JCPOA or even denuclearization. Such a deal could expand it into a de facto non-aggression pact between Iran and Israel, something that was previously unthinkable.
My recent research highlights that the U.S. can indeed secure a stronger and more comprehensive deal through licensing bilateral trade up to $25 billion annually and providing avenues for American companies to access Iran’s largely untapped $4 trillion investment market by 2040. Such an agreement could stabilize the region through mutual economic engagement rather than military escalation.
The alternative is unspeakable: a trillion-dollar regional disaster, a shattered nuclear agreement, a nuclear-armed Iran, and the disintegration of alliance networks that have historically underpinned U.S. dominance in the Middle East.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.