Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-22
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Lina Kennouche, Associate Researcher at CREAT, University of Lorraine
The joint Israeli-American action launched on February 28 has plunged the United States into a strategic deadlock. At this stage, the conflict benefits Russia, and an increasing number of voices in the United States, both within the Democratic camp and also in the MAGA sphere, denounce a war that is being waged more in the interest of Tel Aviv than in that of Washington.
According to theNew York Times, it was after a series of secret meetings with the Israeli Prime Minister that Donald Trump reportedly subscribed to the idea that a regime change in Iran through the disorganization and decapitation of power, as well as the neutralization of Tehran’s ballistic capabilities, was a “within reach” objective. Benjamin Netanyahu convinced him that Iran was not capable “of blocking the Strait of Hormuz nor seriously striking American interests in the region.”
The American president would therefore have been convinced of the inevitable success of a major offensive, based on the assumption that it was a low-cost operation from which he could quickly emerge victorious. An initially mistaken calculation. Indeed, Iran’s capacity to retaliate, having managed to saturate enemy defense systems using low-cost drones and hypersonic ballistic missiles while disrupting the global economy by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, has foiled these forecasts.
A predicted stalemate
This risk of strong resistance was moreover largely perceptible since theJoint Chiefs of Staff chief Dan Caine reportedly warned Donald Trumpagainst strikes that could prove risky and drag the United States into a prolonged conflict.Intelligence services assessmentshad also described the possible reactions of Iran, specifying in particular that Tehran would rather focus on regional reprisals, targeting “American bases, Gulf allies, and critical energy chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz.”
Observers agree on one hand that this Iranian resilience is the result of the doctrine ofmosaic defensefrom the 2000s which ensured operational continuity, even after the decapitation of the highest leaders of the regime, by dispersing the command; and, on the other hand, that Iran was prepared for a war of attrition in which the goal is to degrade the enemy’s resources faster than it can replenish them.
Also to read:
Iran: from the regime of the mullahs to the regime of the guardians
Alain Chouet, former head of security intelligence at the DGSE, recalls in a telephone interview that Iran has prepared for this shock. “The Iranian army is equipped with equipment from the 1970s and is not capable of conducting conventional operations; that is why the Iranians have prepared for a war of attrition and to wait on the ground. It will be a different story if the Americans want to go in. Iran is not Iraq, it is not Somalia, it is not even Syria. It has 90 million inhabitants, a vast territory over which they are fully capable of inflicting heavy losses on anyone who would want to invade them – something public opinion, in Israel or the United States, could not bear.”
This observation is shared by Olivier Dujardin, a former soldier specialized in electronic warfare and electromagnetic intelligence. This analyst clarifies that to the extent that the Iranians have buried many of their missile installations and hidden part of their production in the mountains, the Americans faced a whole series of problems:
“The United States lacked legitimate targets to strike, so what was left for them? Possibly oil refineries, electricity production plants; but then what? Moreover, they consumed an enormous amount of ammunition. The stocks are not inexhaustible; they could not maintain this rate of strikes over time. Another aspect of the problem is equipment wear. The deployment of aircraft, their maintenance, the recovery of pilots must be ensured. This poses a whole set of difficulties. It is clear that they set themselves unattainable goals through air action alone. It would then have been necessary to send ground troops, but mobilizing 20,000 or 30,000 soldiers would not have allowed them to achieve anything significant. This requires hundreds of thousands of men to be able to launch operations against Iran on such a vast, dry, arid, and mountainous territory.”
An Israeli war rather than an American war?
It therefore appears that, under the influence of Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump allowed himself to be drawn into a war without a real purpose, with a risk of entanglement for the American forces. This is not, moreover, the first war into which the United States has entered after being convinced by Israeli arguments.
According to many observers, the 2003 intervention in Iraq – which strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski had describedbefore the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committeeof a “calamitous, historic, strategic and moral…” nature, carried out on the basis of Manichean principles and an excessive imperial pride” – had already been a striking illustration of the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby in the formulation of American foreign policy.
The American academic John Petras had thus documented in his workThe Power of Israel in the United Statespublished in 2006 the predominant influence on American policy in the Middle East of the pro-Israel lobby, which successively ensures support from high-level government officials, the business world, academia, Christian fundamentalists, and the media. It shows how, together, they managed to guarantee the total and unconditional support of the United States to all the priorities of Israel’s agenda for decades, even when these harm U.S. interests, as during the 2003 Iraq war.
This thesis is also defended by John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt in their landmark workThe Israeli Lobby and American Foreign Policy(2009). They recall that the close relationship with Israel is the cornerstone of American policy in the Middle East and that the United States’ commitment to Israel is mainly linked to the activities of the “Israeli lobby.”
The two authors had initially published an article entitled “The Israel Lobby” which caused alively controversyin the academic, political, and media spheres; that is why they sought, in this book, to deepen their analysis and to detail the methodology to counter the harsh criticisms they have been subjected to.
Negative results for Washington as well as for Tel Aviv
In this new war context, Israel seems to have played a leading role in the decision to launch a large-scale offensive against Iran. But while the American objectives have been poorly defined, the Israeli goals appear more obvious.
“The Israelis are trying to resurrect the borders as conceived by Oded Yinon (expert of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs who developed in the 1980s the objective to dismantle the Arab states, considered the weak link of the international order, to recombine them on confessional bases, editor’s note), that is to say the redrawing of the countries in the region based on ethnic, religious, etc. criteria. Today, in this project, Netanyahu takes advantage of the fact that all assessment of regional policy has been delegated by Trump to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is more Zionist than the Israelis, and he is the one leading the dance on these issues according to the criteria of the most radical Zionists. That said, in my eyes and in the eyes of a number of my former colleagues from the Israeli services, it is a suicidal policy,
Olivier Dujardin reminds us that Israel is engaged in a conflict on multiple fronts and that the situation is inextricable: “This already has a cost for them. Firstly, no defense system provides total protection. There are always missiles that get through. Then, they experience interceptor exhaustion because it is very expensive for them to intercept ballistic missiles with missiles that cost several million. Therefore, they do not have huge stockpiles either. Moreover, these are very slow production and manufacturing processes, so they cannot keep up with the industrial pace. Finally, last point, the Iranians are deploying mainly new-generation missiles which are consequently more difficult to intercept. All this combined means that there are still strikes on Israeli soil, and this is not neutral for them,” he specifies.
Although there is no political opposition in Israel to these wars on multiple fronts, agrowing discontent among public opinionis palpable in the face of the absence of strategic gains, despite tactical successes. But the prospect of war as a permanent mode of Israeli policy combined with an all-or-nothing logic is starting to have a significant cost for the American ally, as demonstrated by the initial effects of this war against Iran. Indeed, thesoaring prices of oil, gas, and derivative productsgreatly benefits the Russian rival, who can thus bothbetter finance its war in Ukraineand become a more important trading partner than before for many countries.
David Teurtrie, research associate at the Center for Eurasian European Research (CREE) and specialist on Russia, indicates in this regard that “The Americans and Israelis are already a priori running short of anti-aircraft missiles – there have even been requests for transfers from Poland and South Korea. It is therefore clear that they no longer have anti-aircraft missiles for Ukraine. Especially since, even before the conflict, deliveries to Ukraine were already decreasing.” He adds that the current context increases Russia’s revenues not only in terms of oil sales but also in other areas, notably fertilizers and aluminum.
An unpopular war in the United States
Moreover, this war is beginning to have an internal political cost for the United States and risks eventually affecting their relationship with Israel to the extent that divisions are already being felt within the MAGA movement. Several major figures in this movementexpressed strong criticism towards Israel, denouncing the risk for the United States of becoming bogged down in a never-ending war to the detriment of their interests. A few months before the midterms, theRepublicans realize that their chance of retaining the majority in the House is dwindlingdue to Donald Trump’s decision to carry out military operations against Iran.
Within the Democratic camp, opposition to the war is also growing stronger. Bernie Sanders in an article entitled“No more US military aid to Israel” published on April 15 inThe Guardianwrites:
“Support for Israel in this country has dropped dramatically. Today, according to a recent Pew poll, 80% of Democrats now hold an unfavorable opinion of Israel and 41% of Republicans share this view — and these figures are even higher among young people. A recent Quinnipiac poll also revealed that 60% of those surveyed — including three-quarters of Democrats and two-thirds of independents — oppose the United States supplying arms to Israel.”
The Senate rejected Bernie Sanders’ two proposals to block arms and bulldozer sales to Israel; but the war against Iran could be one of the last wars led by the United States at Israel’s initiative.
Lina Kennouche does not work for, advise, hold shares in, or receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliation other than her research institution.
–ref. Iran: The United States at an impasse –https://theconversation.com/iran-the-united-states-at-an-impasse-280998