Prominent analysts, including former Israeli officials, have long cautioned Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, about launching wars from Gaza to Lebanon without a defined endgame.

Now, with international opposition mounting against Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, the country has turned its focus to Iran, “the last enemy standing,” as one expert described it to The Wall Street Journal.

Yet, many experts interpret the ongoing Israeli assault whose potential success depends more on direct American involvement than on any coherent long-term planning from Netanyahu’s government.

“A pendulum is swinging from one side to another,” says Kadir Temiz, President of ORSAM and a faculty member at Istanbul Medeniyet University.

Temiz says that in reference to the oscillation between diplomatic engagement over Iran’s nuclear programme and the regime change agenda pushed by Netanyahu and his allies in Israel, the US, and the broader West.

Netanyahu has made statements about the lack of a definitive plan ranging from dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities to outright regime change in Tehran. 

Both goals appear far-fetched and distant without explicit US support. Some influential voices in American right-wing circles, such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, remain fiercely opposed to another US-led war in the Middle East.

“There are clear concerns that the current Iranian regime has no clear alternative,” Temiz tells TRT World, adding that “the regime change could plunge a nation of 92 million, rich in oil and gas, into chaos and many unknowns.”

According to Ghoncheh Tazmini, an Iranian-Canadian political analyst, “Topple the government for the MKO or Pahlavi puppet – not all the population of Iran wants that.”

Tazmini refers to the MKO or Mujahadeen-e-Khalq Organisation and Reza Pahlavi, an exiled royal and vocal supporter of Israel, both of whom have called for regime change in Iran. Pahlavi has urged Iranians to rise up against the current government. The MKO lost public credibility after aligning with Saddam Hussein during the 1980s brutal Iran-Iraq war.

Will diplomacy win out?

A diplomatic resolution may be the most rational path forward, says Temiz, given the risks of destabilisation that regime change would entail.

“Not many political actors are willing to invest in this Israeli agenda,” he adds. “I believe that there will be some diplomacy with the regional Arab monarchies stepping in,” Tazmini tells TRT World.

Recent reports suggest that some lowkey Arab diplomats are conveying Iranian messages to their American interlocutors that Tehran is willing to re-engage with the US for nuclear negotiations. 

More than 20 Arab and Muslim countries – including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Türkiye, all with strategic ties to the US and the Western alliance – have condemned Israeli attacks on Iran in a joint statement.

Still, tensions remain high.

US President Donald Trump’s abrupt departure from the G7 meeting in Canada, which called a vague ceasefire to Israel-Iran confrontation while placing primary blame on Tehran, and asserting that something “much bigger” than a truce is in the works, has added fuel to the speculation that Washington may be preparing its own strike.

Before leaving, Trump posted (emphasising in all caps America, first, great, and Iran’s denial of nuclear weapons) on Truth Social: “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” 

He followed up with a declaration that added new meaning to his signature slogan: “America first means many great things, including the fact that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Make America great again!!!”

The final G7 statement, published only after Trump threatened to withhold his signature, reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and described Iran as “the principal source of regional instability and terror,” reiterating that Tehran must never possess nuclear weapons.

While Iran has used its proxies, Hezbollah and other Shia groups, to expand its regional influence, many critics view Israel, as the occupying power in Palestine, as a perpetrator of war crimes and even genocide.

“The Iranian nation is not being ‘liberated’ by a genocidal regime,” Tazmini tells TRT World. “The killings have a rally-around-the-flag effect.”

Western media outlets have corroborated her claims with on-the-ground reporting.

Can a fatwa halt nuclear drive?

“I sense that a moment of critical decision on Iran is approaching,” Temiz says.

But rather than escalation, he believes that a scaled-down Iranian nuclear programme would be preferable for Israel, the US, and regional actors.

Temiz draws attention to a potentially overlooked and interesting aspect of the situation: the issuance of a clear fatwa by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, against nuclear weapons, which can bring clarity to the lingering issue between the West and Tehran once and for all.

Khamenei has previously issued statements calling weapons of mass destruction “a serious threat to humanity,” declaring their use haram (forbidden) and insisting that protecting mankind from such threats is a universal duty.

In a 2012 interview, former Iranian president and nuclear negotiator Hassan Rouhani said that Khamenei “has issued a fatwa” against acquiring a nuclear bomb.

“If Khamenei issues a clear fatwa against the production of nuclear weapons, the view that the current Iranian regime is sustainable might prevail across both the region and globe,” Temiz says. “If this happens, it might normalise the Iranian regime as a regional and global consensus emerges to rather keep it than let it be ousted.”

Iran’s endgame: War of attrition?

While analysts widely differ on forecast outcomes, many agree that Iran’s strategy will depend on domestic support and its ability to withstand economic and military pressure.

In that context, the big question remains: how long can Iran retaliate against Israel?

“I’ve given up predicting outcomes,” says Edward Erickson, a leading American military analyst and academic. “But it seems to me that a nation of 92 million people can wage a war of attrition and fight to exhaustion against a nation of 10 million (which is already engaged up to its eyeballs in Gaza, the West Bank, and the Lebanon frontier, as well as being fully dependent on American goodwill and support).”

Erickson warns against underestimating Iran’s resilience, adding that its large population could sustain a war of attrition against Israel and potentially exhaust its systems, with support from Russia and China likely if the conflict drags on.

He adds: “Continuous stress on Israeli systems and the Israeli people can induce exhaustion”.

He believes that, should Iran opt for a prolonged conflict, both Russia and China are likely to increase their support for Tehran. Moscow has already offered to mediate, and Beijing has condemned Israel’s actions.

“The media is increasingly talking about regime collapse. I hope that will happen, but Iran surprised the world from 1980 to 1988 by conducting a long attritional war against Iraq. They may prove more resilient than the experts and pundits think,” he adds.

Tazmini agrees, referencing Iran’s resilience during the Iran-Iraq War.

However, Tehran has faced significant setbacks in Syria and Lebanon, where its influence has significantly diminished, and where Western sanctions continue to hit the Iranian economy hard.

Despite these setbacks, Iranian strikes deep inside Israel show that Tehran can “inflict heavy damage and expose Israeli vulnerability,” according to Tazmini.

Iran has recently hit Israeli refineries and energy assets among other targets. Temiz says that Iran has the capacity to respond.

“But the problem is no one can afford the costs that would arise if Iran uses its capacity to the full extent against Israel, a Jewish state. Because of that, a big diplomacy is underway round the clock,” he says.

A nuclear war?

According to Erickson, “without a ground invasion like the US occupation of Iraq, nobody can stop Iran from actually building a bomb right now.” While Iranians were surprised by Israel's Thursday attack in the middle of nuclear deal negotiations with the US, they've certainly been planning to disperse assets for years, he says.  

If Iran moves toward weaponisation, would it risk a scenario akin to Japan in WWII?

“That is a scenario. But a very far-fetched one,” says Tazmini. “But many worst-case scenarios have happened under Netanyahu,” she notes, especially now with strong backing from Trump in the confrontation with Iran.

“What is the precedent they would set here if this were a scenario that happened?” she asks. “So, then it will be Russia’s turn,” she warns, suggesting that global politics could slide into “law of the jungle.”

Dan Steinbock, an international economist and author of The Fall of Israel, cites a 2023 US war game involving senior officials, bipartisan lawmakers, and experts. The simulation concluded with Israel launching 50 nuclear strikes on 25 major Iranian military targets in response to Tehran’s escalating resistance. 

“It appears, the Trump administration and the Netanyahu cabinet are jointly engaged in a massive, pre-calculated regime change operation that seeks to eliminate entire Iranian political, economic and military capabilities – regardless of the devastating consequences for the region and the world,” he says.