The recent escalation in hostilities between Israel and Iran has brought the Middle East dangerously close to a full-scale regional war, one that could swiftly draw in neighboring countries as well as the United States and its allies.
With Iran contemplating retaliation after Israel’s missile attack on October 26, the urgency for diplomatic intervention is increasingly critical.
A swift and decisive diplomatic initiative is needed not only for Iran and Israel but is also essential to prevent further regional destabilization, which if allowed to spiral, would have grave implications for global security and stability.
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Iran retains its inherent right to self-defense in response to Israel’s actions. Iran’s leadership is aware that accepting attacks on Tehran could set a dangerous precedent, suggesting a weakening of its stance.
Israel’s strikes represent the first attacks on Iranian soil since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. A failure to respond could undermine Iran’s image among regional allies and its domestic population.
There is concern that normalizing such incursions might erase critical “red lines,” potentially encouraging Israel to strike Tehran with the same frequency it applies to Damascus and Beirut.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that Israel’s recent aggression should not be downplayed, stressing that the regime’s miscalculations about Iran’s resilience and strength will not go unchallenged.
Following his statements, President Masoud Pezeshkian and Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi emphasized the need for a proportionate response, affirming Iran’s unwillingness to leave this attack unanswered.
As it did following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil, Tehran has expressed a reluctance to escalate into full-scale war with Israel, acknowledging that a well-timed ceasefire could influence its response, potentially moderating or even preventing military action.
This window for negotiation offers the United States and its Western allies a critical opportunity to support a diplomatic solution and press for a ceasefire.
For Israel, a ceasefire could represent a practical exit from the costly and complex situation. Its recent campaign has inflicted substantial losses on Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon but at the cost of innocent lives and significant military resources.
Israel has assassinated high-profile leaders, such as Yahya Sinwar of Hamas and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, but both groups’ forces have proven resilient and exacted notable losses on the Israeli military, which drains both resources and morale.
For example, the recent attacks on the Israeli Golani Brigade headquarters and the deaths of Colonel Ehsan Daqsa show that these groups remain formidable. Over the past month, the Israeli army has reported 90 soldiers killed and 750 wounded in Lebanon alone, along with significant losses of equipment, including Merkava tanks, military bulldozers, and advanced drones.
From October 7 to October 25, Israel’s Ministry of Defense reported the deaths of 890 soldiers and officers across its military and security services, with nearly 5,000 more wounded.
These staggering figures have led Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to warn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of a costly war lacking both “a compass” and “a clear goal that risks entangling both nations in a war of attrition.
The prolonged conflict has also fuelled frustration among Israeli citizens, especially the families of hostages and fallen soldiers, who have publicly voiced dissatisfaction with the government’s approach.
At a recent memorial ceremony for the October 7 attack, Israel’s prime minister faced outcries from grieving families. Some relatives shouted, “Shame on you!” while one repeatedly cried out, “My father was killed.”
Such sentiments reveal a deeper issue: the longer this conflict continues, the greater Israel’s risk of becoming entrenched in an unsustainable, open-ended war. A ceasefire offers a realistic way to break this costly cycle and avoid further casualties.
Israel’s strategy must also contend with lessons from recent history. Some hawkish advocates of a military-first approach to reshaping the Middle East like the former Mossad chief should remember the 2003 Iraq War. At that time, a swift military campaign was anticipated to establish stability, turn Iran’s influence around, and transform Iraq into an ally.
Instead, Iranian influence grew, diverting US resources with limited long-term success. Today, Hezbollah and Hamas have become similarly entrenched within their communities, not just as military powers but as essential service providers. Efforts to reduce their influence must account for this social integration, as tactical victories alone are unlikely to dismantle their regional standing.
Moreover, while some in Israel might assume that a future US administration under Donald Trump would endorse a full-scale conflict with Iran, this overlooks critical variables.
During his first term, Trump favored sanctions and rhetoric over direct military involvement. He notably refrained from a military response in several moments of high tension.
In fact, the Republican nominee has told Prime Minister Netanyahu that he wants Israel to wrap up the war in Gaza by the time he returns to office if he wins the election, as reported by the Times of Israel.
Moreover, domestic support in the US for another Middle Eastern conflict is low following the costly Iraq and Afghanistan wars, meaning that even a supportive administration might push for diplomatic solutions over direct involvement. The United States may be more inclined to back peace efforts that support its own strategic objectives rather than commit to further regional entanglement.
The US government is fully aware of the risks associated with being drawn into this conflict. Already providing significant military aid to Israel, with Brown University estimating nearly $22.76 billion allocated this past year, the US would face an immense financial burden if hostilities were to expand. Such a strain would divert resources from urgent domestic and global priorities, reinforcing the argument for a diplomatic approach.
Beyond economics, a wider Middle Eastern conflict would detract from the US’s strategic focus on containing Chinese and Russian influence in regions like the South China Sea and Eastern Europe. A prolonged Middle Eastern war could allow these powers to consolidate their interests unchallenged, underscoring the viability of a ceasefire for the US.
The escalating tensions between Israel and Iran present a pivotal moment for international diplomacy. Each involved nation faces profound and potentially irreversible consequences should this conflict continue unchecked.
For Iran, retaliation is a matter of both regional standing and self-defense, while Israel faces an unsustainable burden as it risks entanglement in an endless cycle of violence. The United States, aware of its own fiscal and strategic constraints, has a critical role to play in advocating for a ceasefire.
A timely diplomatic intervention could pave the way for de-escalation, sparing the region from further devastation and allowing for a shift toward a more stable, sustainable peace. This opportunity for resolution underscores the collective interest of diplomacy over warfare, positioning all parties for a path out of an otherwise costly and prolonged conflict.
Hossein Zeinali is an international reporter at Farhikhtegan Daily and Sadegh Emami is a member of the publication’s editorial board.