Analysts say stalled talks drove U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran; leadership change is potential goal

The latest U.S.-Israeli military offensive against Iran was driven directly by a stalemate in talks between Washington and Tehran, analysts say, warning that leadership change – not merely nuclear containment – may now be the primary objective.

The offensive, described by U.S. officials as an effort to neutralize "imminent threats," has ignited a new phase of violence in the Middle East and raised concerns about the prospects for renewed diplomacy.

Explosions were reported in Tehran and cities across Iran. Tehran responded with its own missile and drone attacks toward Israeli territory as well as U.S. military assets based in several Gulf states, marking one of the most serious escalations since last year's conflict that saw a 12-day exchange of strikes.

The timing of the strikes – coming just days after the latest Geneva talks – has raised questions about whether the recent rounds of diplomacy were genuine.

Tang Zhichao, director of the Center for Middle East Development and Governance Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that "the negotiations were completely a smokescreen, just like in June last year."

The massive U.S. military buildup in the region, especially the second aircraft carrier, was fully in place, Tang noted. "This was a carefully planned result. It shows that the United States and Israel have completely lost hope in negotiations, and leadership change in Iran is the goal," he told CGTN.

U.S. and Iranian officials had been engaged in several rounds of talks aimed at resolving disputes over Iran's nuclear program, uranium enrichment limits and access for international inspectors. Despite some progress, the talks, mediated by Oman, failed to produce a breakthrough, and U.S. President Donald Trump publicly expressed frustration with Iran's negotiating stance, warning that military force remained an option.

The U.S. president had set a 10–15 day deadline for meaningful diplomatic progress, and U.S. officials warned that a lack of agreement would prompt a shift toward military pressure. Iran insisted it would not abandon its sovereign rights to develop its nuclear program and threatened retaliation against U.S. assets in neighboring countries if attacked.

Wang Jin, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at Northwest University, said conflict was inevitable after Iran's response failed to satisfy either the U.S. or Israel. The core problem, he noted, was a fundamental disconnect: "Iran believes it made great concessions, but that clashed sharply with U.S. and Israeli views. Continuing talks would be a waste of time."

That's why Washington no longer wants to engage Iran through dialogue and instead seeks to intervene militarily to maximally weaken Iran, he told CGTN.

Other analysts, however, offered a more nuanced interpretation. "The announcement of negotiations followed by immediate military action does not necessarily mean diplomacy was a facade," Sun Taiyi, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States, told CGTN. 

Sun described the U.S. approach as "'coercive bargaining' – using limited force to enhance credibility and strengthen leverage at the negotiating table." In this sense, "war is often viewed as a continuation of politics by other means."

The U.S.-Israeli joint operation, which marks a break from last year's strikes that primarily focused on Iran's nuclear facilities, has broadened significantly, with reports saying Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were targeted in Saturday's attacks.

"This time it is to further eliminate nuclear and ballistic missile threats, and leadership change is not ruled out," Tang said. "The U.S. strikes in June last year were mainly taken under Israel's persuasion, but this time the U.S. is playing the main role, and the scale and targets have clearly expanded."

While the two countries' military objectives appear more closely aligned this time, analysts note that they still differ in emphasis and methods, even as they share broad goals.

"Israel hopes to completely eliminate the strategic threat from Iran, not only nuclear, ballistic missiles, and drones, but also hopes to completely eliminate the threat from Iran and its regional allies," Tang said.

Trump only wants to eliminate the nuclear threat, he said, adding that if conditions are favorable, he does not rule out overthrowing Iran's leadership, but he is unwilling to consume excessive resources or get bogged down in Iran.

Sun said compared with Israel, the U.S. "has a wider geopolitical calculus: by striking Iran, it also aims to disrupt Tehran's military and technological cooperation with actors such as Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In this sense, the Iran file is interconnected with multiple global security theaters – pressure on one front is intended to reverberate across others."

The ongoing conflict, with explosions echoing across the Middle East throughout Saturday, carries much higher risks than last year's 12-day war, which saw limited Iranian retaliation against U.S.-Israeli attacks. Sun warned of significantly greater escalation, citing "two U.S. carrier strike groups in the region" as evidence of heightened readiness.

He also noted that "domestic political considerations cannot be ignored, with Netanyahu having strong incentives to sustain a posture of external confrontation, which can consolidate political support and prolong his governing viability."