Editor's note: Sameed Basha, a special commentator for CGTN, is a defence and political analyst based in Australia, specialising in Asia-Pacific regional dynamics and conflict and security studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Once again, Israeli airstrikes have targeted Iranian territory, continuing a predictable pattern of mediation collapse. This mirrors the events in 2025 when diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran appeared close to a peace agreement but was ultimately jeopardized by an unprovoked attack by Israel. What is happening now is not a negotiation failure, since substantial progress was reported days before. Instead, it is a recurring strategic move where opportunities for de-escalation and off-ramps are intentionally blocked to force Washington into confrontation, with Israel hiding behind U.S. military power.  

This pattern of sabotaging peace in the Middle East has not occurred in a vacuum. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent more than 30 years advocating for U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear program by constructing it as an existential threat to Israel.  

Since 1995, he has issued repeated warnings of Iran passing the weapons-grade threshold, most notably at the 2012 UN meeting, where he theatrically held up a placard to depict how close Tehran supposedly was to acquiring a bomb. The narrative from Israel has endured despite inconsistencies in U.S. intelligence gathering, which has played a front-line role in destabilizing the Middle East for the past 25 years.  

Now with the largest U.S. military build-up in the region since 2003, Israel's long pursuit of confrontation with Iran has finally come to fruition. The erosion of strategic restraint in intelligence assessments was evident in 2025, when U.S. intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard stated in her Senate testimony that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not authorized restarting the program, suspended in 2003. She was then publicly rebuked by President Donald Trump, who said he "did not care what she said" and aligned his views squarely with Netanyahu's rhetoric.  

This alone underscores how Netanyahu's long-standing narrative, cultivated over many decades and seven official meetings with Trump since 2025, has not only shaped Israeli public discourse but also progressively conditioned the manufacture of consent in Washington.

The strategic logic underpinning this traces back to a 1996 paper by an Israeli think tank titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was produced for Netanyahu's incoming regime. The paper rejected the "land for peace" initiative based on a UN Security Council resolution, which proposed that Israel withdraw from territories occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace, recognition, and security from its Arab neighbors.  

Instead, it advocated for a more aggressive approach, like toppling Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, the containment of Syria and Lebanon, and framing Israel's security problems in a language the American public could understand, grounded in "peace through strength" and Western values. The Clean Break strategy further emphasized how Israel is self-reliant and does not need US troops to defend itself, though history has shown otherwise.  

Now with the strikes on Iran, Israel has engineered a retaliatory environment whereby Washington cannot ignore or diplomatically veto without appearing weak. Israel's strategy deliberately limits Washington's strategic choice, forcing the U.S. into a zero-sum bind between escalation and humiliation. 

Despite being subdued over the past year, Iran still has a strong presence in the region, which can bleed the resources of the U.S. If this becomes a protracted war, the Pentagon will have to decide whether it wishes to contain China in the Indo-Pacific, counter Russia in Ukraine, manage any fallout from a power vacuum in a fragile Venezuela, or respond to Iran in a battlespace that extends to Iraq and Lebanon in the west and Yemen in the south.  

The result will be further stress on a U.S. military industrial complex already stretched thin. US assets and the lives of U.S. soldiers will be at risk while Israel sets the tempo, insulates itself from risks and reaps the strategic dividends over a bloodied US and a fractured Middle East.  

The region faces serious implications that require all countries to recalibrate. The U.S.-Israel relationship is expected to drive increased militarization, undermine already vulnerable states, and deepen sectarian and proxy conflicts that have persisted as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Gulf states, which warned the U.S. against striking Iran, will review their security arrangements and could establish new alliances like Saudi Arabia's recent defense pact with Pakistan.  

Energy markets are likely to remain volatile, while the influence of international institutions will continue to diminish as Israel yields its power over the U.S. without international oversight.  

The global impact goes well beyond the Middle East. By repeatedly bypassing diplomacy in favor of unilateral force, the U.S. has normalized a "law of the jungle" environment where power overrides law. This will further accelerate the appeal of China and the BRICS as an alternative counterbalance centred on mutual respect, multipolar institutions, energy and trade integration, with diplomacy being the core of its identity. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)