• Analysts say US-Israel war against Iran followed failed nuclear talks, raising questions about whether collapse of nuclear diplomacy could have been avoided

WASHINGTON

The US-Israeli military attacks on Iran are raising questions among analysts about whether the collapse of nuclear diplomacy could have been avoided and what Washington’s strategic objectives are.

The war erupted despite months of indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran to resolve disputes about Iran’s nuclear program. Several rounds of talks were held under Omani mediation before tensions again escalated.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, said the conflict follows a pattern in which negotiations with Tehran coincided with military pressure.

“The Trump administration engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran last year … and then, as the negotiations were getting a little more serious, the Israelis got the green light from Washington and attacked Iran in June,” Mortazavi told Anadolu.

Washington later joined Israel in the operation in June, which President Donald Trump claimed had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump also said Wednesday that if the US “didn't hit within two weeks” Tehran would have had a nuclear weapon.

The Trump administration has argued that the recent strikes were necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to degrade its military capabilities.

Mortazavi said the same dynamic appeared to repeat itself during the most recent nuclear talks.

“This time, the Iranians were saying we have absolutely no trust in this process,” she said. “Iranian diplomats were saying we’re coming to negotiations with our finger on the trigger, assuming we’re going to get attacked again. And it happened.”

“As (Special Envoy) Steve Witkoff basically explained, he wanted full capitulation on the Iranian side, essentially giving up the entirety of the (nuclear) program, potentially even the civilian program,” she said.

“The Iranians really resisted that because they have maintained that they want the right … to have a civilian program, but also commit that this would never turn into a weapons program. It's something they committed under the JCPOA,” Mortazavi said, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal.

The deal placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018, arguing it failed to address Iran’s missile program and regional activities. He then ordered the reimposition of sanctions.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is civilian and that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to maintain peaceful nuclear activities under international monitoring.

Netanyahu’s long push for US military action against Iran

Mortazavi pointed to long-standing Israeli pressure on Washington to take military action against Iran. She said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed multiple US administrations toward confrontation with Tehran for decades.

“He has engaged and pushed multiple US administrations and presidents to attack Iran … and he finally found that opening,” she said. “It’s ironic, because this is a president who calls himself the ‘president of peace’ and ran on campaigns against endless wars in the Middle East.”

Limits of military force

Other analysts said the conflict may have been shaped by miscalculations in Washington, where officials believed Tehran was weakened by months of protests since December and a deadly crackdown that reportedly left thousands dead.

Joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran launched Feb. 28 have killed more than 1,000 people, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, over 150 schoolgirls and senior military officials.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute, said Washington appeared to believe Tehran would quickly capitulate.

“Trump was under this crucial impression that Iran is much weaker than it is, and as a result the only acceptable outcome was that Iran would completely surrender,” Parsi said during a virtual panel in Washington hosted by the Turkish-based Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA).

“The diplomacy was simply designed for (Trump's son-in-law and unofficial aide Jared) Kushner and Witkoff to check in every two weeks and see: ‘Are you ready to surrender now?’” he said.

“Trump thought that his war would be over by Monday morning,” he said, adding that the timeline has steadily expanded.

“I think it's clear sign that those erroneous assumptions not only led to the collapse of the diplomacy, but also led to the war turning increasingly into a quagmire,” he said.

Despite the scale of the US-Israel air campaign, analysts believe that air power alone is unlikely to produce regime change in Iran.

“Iran is one of the largest countries in the region, one of the most populated. This is a country that’s unlike Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Mortazavi.

“The failed experiences of past wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya have shown that military superiority in the air is not enough alone,” she said.

Despite major losses, including the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran’s governing system has remained intact, according to Mortazavi.

“We see that the supreme leader was assassinated, but very quickly they regrouped and they created a leadership council. They're running the country still,” she said.

​​​​​​​Regional spillover

Analysts also warned that the war could spread across the Middle East as Tehran has retaliated with attacks targeting US-linked sites in the region.

Countries such as Turkiye are also closely watching developments.

Kadir Ustun, executive director of the SETA Foundation’s Washington office, said Ankara faces security concerns ranging from missile threats to potential refugee flows, and the possibility of the PKK terror organization being armed in Iraq, Iran or Syria.

Ustun said Israel does not appear likely to halt its campaign soon, arguing that leaders in Tel Aviv will continue until they achieve their objectives in the region.

“Further war in this region doesn't benefit Turkish national interests,” stressed Ustun. “This is deeply concerning for Türkiye ... Türkiye wants to focus on rebuilding the region. Wants to focus on rebuilding Syria. Further war sets back the region.”​​​​​​​