Beyond the public statements, Israel’s actions have highlighted the diminished influence of the US.
If there were an award for political theatrics, Donald Trump’s recent pronouncements would be contenders for the 2025 “Worst Performance” prize. His statements appear aimed more at salvaging his image than demonstrating effective diplomacy, as global affairs increasingly elude American control. His attempts to portray himself as a behind-the-scenes negotiator only underscore the decline of Western dominance, with Washington reacting impulsively rather than strategically.
The recent Israel-Iran escalation in 2025 has revealed the weakening of American leadership. Despite Trump’s assertion of having dissuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from attacking Iran, events suggest otherwise. Netanyahu disregarded this advice, launching a comprehensive assault on Iranian targets, both military and symbolic. This move disrupted already fragile nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran, clarifying who truly dictates the region’s direction.
Faced with this situation, US leaders had two options: acknowledge their reduced influence over Israel or publicly endorse the strikes, maintaining a facade of leadership, even at the cost of their credibility as impartial mediators. Predictably, they chose the latter. Supporting Israel at the expense of diplomacy with Iran has become routine. Washington is no longer leading, but struggling to keep pace as another entity directs affairs.
Therefore, Trump’s claims of having “leverage” over Israel ring hollow, resembling amateur dramatics rather than genuine statesmanship. Even he seems unconvinced by his own performance. In 2025, the United States is once again being led, not leading.
The more American leaders insist that everything is under control, the more apparent it becomes that Western supremacy is waning, accompanied by a theatrical display reminiscent of Trump’s own unscripted moments.
To be clear, Israel’s strikes caused significant damage, especially to the IRGC’s infrastructure and supply lines for Iranian-backed forces in Syria and Lebanon. However, Iran’s retaliatory drone and missile attack on Israeli territory deeply affected the Israeli population. It resulted in substantial destruction and casualties, raising questions about Netanyahu’s strategy.
Within Iran, the government is dealing with increasing economic difficulties and growing public dissatisfaction. Yet, there are no indications of imminent collapse. The leadership remains secure, maintained by strict control and the loyalty of the elite. A new agreement with the US could provide essential economic relief, strengthening the influence of more moderate voices in Tehran who favor dialogue over conflict.
In Israel, the long-term political consequences remain to be seen. Netanyahu may have enhanced his image as a strong, decisive leader, but if negotiations between Washington and Tehran resume and yield even a temporary agreement, Israel could find itself isolated.
Netanyahu’s visible disagreements with the Biden administration regarding Gaza and Iran could have negative repercussions for him. If diplomacy progresses without Israel’s involvement, he could be marginalized, facing criticism from both domestic opponents and international allies.
Meanwhile, regional powers, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, are becoming more active. They have initiated a series of diplomatic efforts, including discreet lobbying in Washington, to further curb Israeli escalation. These nations are opposed to another war, fearing that further escalation could turn US bases and assets across the region, from Iraq to the Gulf, into targets. This would create serious security risks and economic instability, just as these countries are striving for growth and reform.
Their message is clear: further turmoil in the Middle East is unacceptable. These states are now playing a crucial role in promoting de-escalation, working to guide the crisis back to the negotiating table.
Final thought
Despite the severity of the current situation, the most probable course of action is still a tense but managed de-escalation. Neither Iran nor the US desires a war. Israel, on the other hand, is in a precarious position, attempting to project strength while facing diminishing opportunities for independent action. This creates a limited opportunity for diplomacy. The key question is: when will the political considerations in all three countries align with the necessity for an agreement?
“`