Editor's Note: Wang Jin is the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at Northwest University, special researcher for China's Beijing Club and expert on Middle East. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The United States and Israel have launched a large-scale military strike against Iran without formally declaring war. This military action has not only inflicted significant personnel and infrastructure losses on Iran, but also effectively disrupted the ongoing dialogues between the United States and Iran regarding nuclear issues in Oman and Geneva. 

Against the backdrop of no substantial breakthroughs in diplomatic communication, the escalation of military operations forced the fragile negotiation channels to halt and significantly increased the uncertainty of regional security, pushing the entire Middle East situation toward a more tense and dangerous state.

The direct cause of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran lies in their strong dissatisfaction with Iran's stance on nuclear issues. However, Washington and Tel Aviv have consistently held different views on how to address Iran's nuclear program. 

The United States tends to maintain communication and engagement, applying sustained diplomatic pressure to induce Iran to make significant concessions on nuclear issues.

Israel, by contrast, generally considers Iran unreliable. Accordingly, Israel advocates applying decisive pressure through enhanced military deterrence and even direct strikes. 

Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States in early February and multiple public statements by U.S. senior officials have indicated that Washington is more inclined to reach a phased or transitional nuclear agreement with Iran within a negotiation framework, rather than resorting immediately to full-scale military action. This divergence in strategic orientation constitutes the long-standing policy tension between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran.

Despite differences in approach, there is significant overlap in core concerns between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program. The United States emphasizes the need to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, opposing both continued nuclear development and the possession of already-produced highly enriched uranium. Israel, while disapproving of relying solely on dialogue with Iran, also seeks to minimize Iran's nuclear capabilities and insists on including Iran's missile technology development and regional policies in overall negotiations.

Based on this shared security concern, the U.S. and Israel have gradually converged on a strategy: maintaining space for political dialogue while simultaneously applying military and strategic pressure, using "high-pressure within a negotiation framework" to compel Iran to make substantive concessions. This combination of diplomatic engagement and military deterrence has become a defining feature of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Previously, the U.S. and Iran both sought to reach consensus through mutual concessions to ultimately avoid military conflict. The United States indeed made certain policy adjustments – for example, during negotiations in Geneva, it no longer insisted on linking Iran's missile capabilities and regional policies with nuclear discussions, focusing instead solely on the nuclear issue itself. The U.S. also proposed allowing Iran to retain a very limited amount of low-enriched uranium under strict conditions as a transitional measure.

Iran, in turn, signaled some willingness to compromise, reaffirming its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, agreeing to dilute and reduce its stock of highly enriched uranium, and considering transferring portions of its high-enriched uranium to other countries or relevant international entities for oversight.

However, on the fundamental issue of whether Iran's nuclear capabilities should be completely abandoned, the U.S. and Iran are difficult to reach an agreement, and this structural divergence remains a key obstacle to negotiation breakthroughs. As the United States has continuously deployed forces around Iran over the past two months, particularly demonstrating a more assertive posture in the past week, regional tensions have rapidly intensified.

Iran, for its part, has attempted to adopt rational negotiating stance by submitting a proposal in advance. However, when this proposal was brought to Geneva for consultation, U.S. negotiators – including Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – expressed disappointment. 

From the U.S. perspective, Iran's position largely adhered to its established framework, refusing to abandon nuclear development, making no substantive concessions on transferring highly enriched uranium or reducing nuclear potential, and continuing to reject discussions of its missile technology and regional policies. This assessment led the U.S. to shift its policy approach toward Iran from dialogue to a more hardline strategy.

For both the United States and Israel, the military strikes against Iran also have significant domestic political considerations. For the U.S., the 2026 midterm elections are approaching, and Iran-related issues occupy a critical place in foreign policy and national security discourse. Either by weakening Iran's strategic capabilities through military means or by pressuring Iran into greater concessions at the negotiating table, the U.S. could take a strong stance on Iran as an important instrument to bolster the administration's diplomatic and governance credibility.

For Israel, the 2026 election also looms, and Iran's nuclear program has long been regarded as one of the most pressing national security concerns. Military strikes against Iran allow the government to demonstrate its resolve in safeguarding national security, consolidate support for the right-wing political base, particularly benefiting Netanyahu by securing a favorable voter structure, and divert attention from domestic political pressures such as corruption allegations.

The military strikes by the U.S. and Israel have had far-reaching and complex consequences. 

First, the actions effectively mark a U.S. shift away from its previously dialogue-focused policy path toward a position more aligned with Israel's hardline stance. The joint military operations have almost completely eroded Iran's strategic trust in the United States. Within Iran, there is little short-term space for political or public support for continuing dialogue with Washington. Under these circumstances, U.S.-Iran relations are likely to enter a prolonged standoff or structural hostility.

Second, the military actions have severely disrupted existing dialogue mechanisms. After multiple rounds of difficult mediation, the U.S. and Iran had just initiated with mediation from Oman and other regional countries. Several countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, opposed military escalation. 

However, with the strikes, the policy rift between the U.S. and certain regional states has widened, significantly increasing the likelihood of prolonged conflict.

Third, Iran is certain to take retaliatory measures, which will push regional security into a spiraling cycle of escalation. Iran is capable of striking U.S. military bases across the Middle East – particularly in Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia – as well as targets within Israel. Iran may also mobilize regional allies, including the Houthi in Yemen, to attack U.S. and Israeli targets. As retaliation and counter-retaliation unfold, the Middle East could once again teeter on the brink of a new round of conflict.

Once military conflict erupts, it will further intensify regional tensions, rapidly severing the already fragile communication channels between the U.S. and Iran and accelerating the polarization of Middle Eastern camps, solidifying opposing structures. 

Given the unpredictability of the conflict's trajectory, global financial markets and investment sectors are likely to experience pronounced panic, raising demand for capital flight and posing significant shocks to both global and regional economic structures. 

The escalation is not merely a military confrontation; it may trigger cascading negative impacts across political, security and economic domains, with spillover effects far exceeding the immediate parties involved.