Israel’s strikes against Iran: A political manoeuvre or all-out war?

The US ordered the evacuation of non-essential embassy staff and their families from several countries across the Middle East on Wednesday night as tensions in the region continue to escalate.

The decision comes amid an apparent impasse in US-Iran nuclear talks, with US President Donald Trump saying he was “less confident” the two countries would reach a deal to reign in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The US State Department announced it would be partially evacuating personnel from the US embassy in Baghdad to “keep Americans safe, both home and abroad.”

That comes after US officials told CBS that they had been told that Israel was ready to launch a military operation in Iran and that US military positions in neighbouring Iraq could be the target of a retaliation by Tehran.

But is what is happening now just manoeuvres by Iran to protect its nuclear programme, or is the region really facing a scenario of a surprise military strike that could ignite a comprehensive regional war?

Euronews takes a look at the complexity of the situation and the possible repercussions on several different fronts; from Gaza to the Red Sea, from Lebanon to Syria.

Israel has long warned that Iran’s nuclear programme is not peaceful in nature and that if the country were to develop nuclear weapons, Israel could conceivably be the target of a nuclear strike.

However, US President Donald Trump issued a direct warning to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran, saying unilateral military action was off limits and diplomacy needed a chance to succeed.

On the other hand, some of Netanyahu’s critics see a military escalation in Iran as securing his political future and having similar impact to the fronts he opened up in Lebanon and Syria.

Will Iran absorb the blow or retaliate?

Any war with Iran would not come without a substantial cost to the United States. US bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates would all be vulnerable to Iranian missile attacks in the event of a conflict.

Commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, said bluntly: “We monitor the depth of the enemy’s targets and are prepared for any scenario.”

Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasserzadeh has also warned that any strikes would not go unanswered, vowing to bomb US bases in the region.

But is this just rhetoric or would Iran carry out its threats? And it’s debatable whether the United States would want to get mired in another long-running conflict in the Middle East so soon after it withdrew its last troops from Iraq after almost eight years in the country.

The presence of the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean also raises questions about its role in the event of war.

At a time when threats are escalating, the deployment of this fleet seems to enhance Washington’s ability to act quickly, but it also makes it a direct target for any Iranian response.

Amidst the regional sabre rattling, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fear that their cause will be relegated to the sidelines.

This could turn Gaza into a “forgotten issue” in the outbreak of a major regional confrontation, with all the humanitarian costs that this would imply.

What about the Houthis and the Hezbollah?

The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have supported Gaza since the start of the war in October 2023 by targeting what they believed to be Israel-linked shopping in the Red Sea, recently reached an agreement with Washington to stop attacking freight vessels.

But there is a strong possibility that if Iran is attacked and launches counterstrikes, that agreement will be forgotten and the Houthis will rearm and start fighting in support of its main financial backer.

Another escalation in and around the key Red Sea shopping lanes threatens again to drive up commodity and oil prices and disrupt the flow of goods between countries.

Another issue is Lebanon.

Despite Israel reaching a ceasefire deal with the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah in November last year, Israeli strikes on Lebanon haven’t really stopped, with the IDF allegedly targeting Hezbollah members and facilities.

So far, Hezbollah has remained silent on the escalating tensions but, like the Houthis, its main financial backer is Iran.

The expectation is Hezbollah will launch solidarity strikes on Israel and while the group was militarily weakened after a year of almost daily cross-border exchanges of fire with Israel, the indications are that Hezbollah maintains a significant offensive capacity which could translate into pressure on Israel’s northern front.

Where do Iraq and Syria stand?

Iraq stands at a very sensitive point. Armed factions loyal to Tehran, led by the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades, maintain their readiness in anticipation of any military development against Iran, raising urgent questions about whether these factions will be the spearhead in targeting US bases or interests associated with Israel from within Iraqi territory.

However, the biggest challenge facing Baghdad is not only taking a decisive stance on the potential crisis, but how to strike a balance between avoiding a destructive confrontation on the one hand, and maintaining fragile security stability on the other.

Security reports indicate serious fears that the so-called Islamic State (IS) terror group could resurface, taking advantage of a regional conflict and the potential security vacuum.

In this context, Iraq seems at risk of being drawn into a conflict to which it was not a party, but may suddenly find itself at the centre of a battle that exceeds its ability to endure or control its course.

Since the assumption of power by interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria has been witnessing a gradual shift in its approach to regional and international relations, amid an openness towards the West and hints of an unprecedented rapprochement with Israel.

This shift, while still in the process of taking shape, raises a central question: In light of the new understandings, could Syrian territory become a corridor or a platform for any military operations in the event of a conflict?

On the other hand, this scenario is not without internal challenges. Remnants of the former regime will seek to exploit the new situation to regain their influence, while the renewed threat of IS poses a real threat to stability.

As for al-Sharaa, he faces a fateful test. If regional war breaks out, will he remain on the sidelines or attempt to determine his position in a complex regional equation by picking a side?

An alliance with Iran seems unlikely in light of the new political trajectory, as does an alignment against Israel. Between these two “impossibilities,” the region is waiting to see how Damascus will position itself in the next phase.

Winners and losers

Any military strike against Iran would not be a quick or easy operation, but rather a step fraught with enormous strategic and security complications.

The outbreak of a confrontation would mean the expansion of its scope to include multiple fronts, widespread disruption of regional balances, and the exposure of vital interests in the Middle East to painful blows.

On the Israeli side, Netanyahu may see the battle as an opportunity to escape his internal political and judicial crises – he is facing charges in three separate corruption cases – and achieve personal gains at the expense of the region’s stability.

As for the US, despite its enormous military power, it is facing a decisive moment, between adopting a deliberate policy of deterrence or being drawn into an open conflict that could cost it dearly, especially in light of the deployment of its military bases in the region surrounding Iran.

Iran, already exhausted by Western sanctions and accumulated economic pressures, will be the first to be affected by any war, which threatens to explode the internal situation and widen the circle of popular anger at a time when the country’s leadership is facing a double test; maintaining internal cohesion and responding to external threats.