Why Israel and the US Attacked Iran Just as Peace Talks Showed Promise

In a Geneva hotel conference room, the most substantive Iranian-American talks in three years were quietly making history. Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi described "unprecedented openness" as both sides moved beyond entrenched positions toward creative solutions. Discussions on nuclear limits and sanctions relief showed genuine flexibility. Then, just as breakthrough seemed within reach, Israeli and American warplanes struck Iranian targets.

The timing wasn't coincidental.

The Moment Peace Became a Threat

Negotiators on both sides were reportedly stunned by the progress. Iran was considering enhanced transparency measures for its nuclear program, while the US was preparing a phased sanctions relief roadmap. Even support for Hamas and Hezbollah was on the discussion table.

But for some stakeholders, this progress represented an existential threat to carefully constructed power dynamics that have defined Middle Eastern geopolitics for decades.

Israel's Strategic Calculation

For Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranian rapprochement with Washington poses a fundamental challenge. The "Iranian threat" has been the cornerstone of Israeli politics since 2009, serving as both a unifying national narrative and Netanyahu's personal political lifeline. Amid ongoing domestic turmoil and corruption charges, external threats provide essential political cohesion.

More critically, direct US-Iran dialogue threatens to sideline Israel's role as America's indispensable Middle East intermediary. The Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain were built on shared Iranian fears. Remove that threat, and Israel's regional leverage diminishes significantly.

The military strikes effectively reset the regional chessboard, ensuring Iran remains isolated and Israel remains central to any future diplomatic architecture.

America's Electoral Arithmetic

The Biden administration faced its own constraints. With nine months until the presidential election, "negotiating with Iran" provides potent ammunition for Republican attacks. Donald Trump was already painting Biden as weak on Iran, echoing his successful 2016 playbook against the Obama-era nuclear deal.

Internal divisions complicated matters further. While the State Department favored diplomatic engagement, Pentagon and intelligence agencies harbored deep skepticism about Iranian intentions. The strikes offered a temporary resolution to these bureaucratic tensions while demonstrating strength to domestic audiences.

The Broader Regional Realignment

The attack's timing reveals deeper anxieties about shifting Middle East dynamics. Regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been quietly exploring independent relationships with Iran, driven by economic interests and fatigue with proxy conflicts.

A successful US-Iran détente would accelerate this trend, potentially creating a more multipolar Middle East where traditional alliances matter less than pragmatic partnerships. For established powers comfortable with the current order, this represents an unacceptable loss of control.

The Cost of Lost Opportunities

Middle East experts warn that this missed opportunity could set back regional stability for a decade or more. Iranian moderates will likely lose ground to hardliners, while nuclear development may accelerate beyond current constraints.

The strikes also signal to other regional actors that diplomatic progress remains hostage to external veto players. This could encourage more unilateral actions and reduce incentives for multilateral cooperation.

Global Implications

The episode highlights a troubling pattern in international relations: peace processes often threaten existing power structures more than ongoing conflicts do. Similar dynamics have complicated negotiations in Korea, Kashmir, and other frozen conflicts where stakeholders benefit from managed tensions.

For global markets, the message is clear: geopolitical risk premiums must account not just for conflict escalation, but for the possibility that peace itself becomes a destabilizing force.

What happens when the greatest obstacle to peace isn't hatred between enemies, but the interests of supposed allies?