Saednews,Amid escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Washington— which had always preferred to stay behind the scenes and use Israel as a pressure tool—was forced to step onto the field.
According to Saed News, amid escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Washington—which had always preferred to remain behind the scenes and use Israel as a pressure tool—was forced to enter the field.
Analyses indicate that Israel alone was unable to cope with the security and technical complexities of Iran’s nuclear program, and the unforeseen costs of this conflict compelled the United States to intervene directly.
Israel’s failure and the changing equation
For years, Israel has tried to slow down Iran’s nuclear program through sabotage operations, assassinations of scientists, and cyberattacks. However, Iran’s technical and security resilience, combined with effective military and intelligence responses (such as missile and drone operations), prevented Tel Aviv from achieving its goals. According to some sources, Israel even faced advanced technical and defensive obstacles in its recent attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, reducing the effectiveness of its actions.
U.S. involvement: a necessity rather than a choice
The U.S. preferred to maintain a supporting role and keep Israel on the front lines against Iran. But Israel’s successive failures and the rising security-military costs of the conflict forced Washington to intervene directly. Some analysts believe that if Israel had been able to contain Iran alone, the U.S. would never have risked direct involvement.
Strategic consequences
Failure of the proxy strategy: Israel’s inability to control Iran demonstrated that the U.S. cannot achieve its goals relying solely on regional allies.
Increased costs for the U.S.: Washington’s direct entry means accepting greater political, military, and economic risks in the region.
Strengthening Iran’s position: These developments show that Iran not only resisted on the ground but also forced a superpower like the U.S. to shift from indirect involvement to direct intervention, signaling a shift in the balance of power.
Summary
The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not an act from a position of strength but a reaction to Israel’s failure and the rising costs of war with Iran. This reveals that the initial calculations of Washington and Tel Aviv were mistaken, and Iran’s resistance pushed the U.S. from a proxy war strategy toward direct intervention—an outcome that could have long-term and unpredictable consequences for the region.
