It was a déjà vu. The diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States, which stretched from Muscat to Geneva, were destined to fail. The U.S. knew well that nothing meaningful would result from these talks. It was all about buying time. Still, they gave the impression that they believed in diplomacy. While agreeing to hold another round of negotiations, the U.S. and Israel carried out pre-emptive strikes on Iran, assassinating Ayatollah Khameini. Iran was duped yet again.
Before the 12-day U.S.-Israeli attacks in June last year, the U.S. and Iran were in similar situations. They were engaging in negotiations, and during those talks, the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan; they also neutralised several military commanders at the same time. As a result, Iran responded with a missile attack on the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, causing minor damage. The conflict then ended. Trump claimed to have ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear development sites and declared victory.
In the latest round of negotiations, the U.S. demanded that Iran hand over the already enriched stockpiles to the U.S. permanently, eliminate its ballistic missiles, and sever ties with regional proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis. With these demands met, the regime could remain in power. Iran responded by signaling it might consider a zero-enrichment programme, but it insisted that sanctions be lifted immediately; the U.S. did not budge. Iran could not accept all U.S. demands as it would lose its security deterrence and threaten its survival; therefore, Iran declined.
The paradox of these negotiations was that the U.S. had a deal with Iran in place until President Trump tore it apart. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed by President Obama in 2015, required Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify compliance. Iran did abide by the deal. Additionally, the Fatwa from the Iranian Supreme Leader prohibited Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Even U.S. intelligence assessments confirmed that Iran had no active nuclear development plans.
But that was not enough for Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. They did not trust that the Iranian regime would continue to adhere to the JCPOA agreement or that it would not secretly develop nuclear weapons in the future. Netanyahu has been trying to convince U.S. administrations since the 1990s that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons and pose an existential threat to Israel. The U.S. has repeatedly gone along with his mantra.
The current conflict stems from the same recurring mantra. This conflict appears to be an Israeli war rather than an American one, and the U.S. could choose not to participate. One might wonder why the U.S. got involved in the first place. The short answer is to satisfy the donor base of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The most influential donors to this lobby are the ultra-rich who support Israeli causes. This lobbying group donates to both Democrats and Republicans. Without AIPAC’s campaign contributions, it’s hard to imagine how a senator or congressperson could get elected. According to the AIPAC website, “96% of AIPAC-backed candidates won their general election races in 2024.”
Ensuring maximum U.S. support for Israel is AIPAC’s paramount goal. Trump is an ardent supporter of Israel and gains benefits from AIPAC’s connections. As a result, Netanyahu has met with Trump seven times since he returned to White House in 2025, an unmatched record. Additionally, the U.S. supplies the latest military hardware and technology, shares intelligence, and manages diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations Security Council. And AIPAC is the conduit to ensure the U.S.-Israeli relations always remain ironclad.
The Congress holds the exclusive power to declare war. However, Trump has not sought its approval before attacking Iran. There is a pending war powers legislation for the Senate to vote on this week. The Republicans argue that Trump already has the authority to go to war, so he does not need a new one. The Democrats are less inclined to escalate the issue; when it comes to Israel, both Democrats and Republicans act in unison. For example, during the last State of the Union Address, Trump received a standing ovation from both parties when he declared that Iran cannot have any nuclear weapons. This act underscores Israel’s influence over American politicians.
Some might wonder why the Arab states didn’t actively try to stop the U.S.-Israeli attacks in Iran. They couldn’t because they rely on U.S. security. Almost all Arab countries in the Middle East host U.S. military bases. They welcomed these bases to protect themselves from Iranian and Israeli threats; as long as their monarchies stay strong, they are okay with the arrangements. This mindset allows the U.S. and Israel to carry out attacks in Iran without Arab resistance.
The goal of the U.S.-Israeli attack in Iran is not just to change the regime or stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capability. The broader plan is to divide Iran, similar to what happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon; the more conflict creates divisions, the more Iran will suffer economic collapse, internal chaos, and become weak; the Strait of Hormuz would be free of Iranian control; there will be no Palestinian state; Middle East oil, gas, and minerals would be easily accessed and controlled. This would lead to total dominance by Israel and, thereby, the U.S.
Iran has been the target of unprovoked attacks; its existence and territorial integrity are at risk. Therefore, if Iran can withstand the current U.S.-Israeli onslaught, securing nuclear capability will likely become its top priority; the next Supreme Leader could be more hardline than Ayatollah Khameini. More chaos might result from the conflict, and the U.S. could become bogged down again, as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. and Israel will need to confront this grim reality.
The writer is a Doctoral Researcher, International Relations, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
