An Iran-based analyst compares Iran, the U.S., and Israel to chess pieces, arguing negotiations are unlikely to succeed and a large strike may follow, with Israel likely initiating.
The current tensions in the Middle East revolve around two key questions. One is raised by the international community: What is the likelihood and potential scale of a U.S. military strike? The other, more commonly asked by the Iranian public, is: When will such an attack occur? This article seeks to provide an analytical response to both questions.
It should be noted that this piece was written inside Iran, relying on field observations and limited access to information. The author is not a specialist in political science or international relations; rather, the analysis is offered from the perspective of an industrial engineer with expertise in strategy and risk management. Based on the author’s field observations across different layers of Iranian society, a significant portion of the population appears to be awaiting support from President Trump in the form of military action against the Islamic Republic.
The Elephant
The key players on the Middle East chessboard must be examined. The primary actor is the Islamic Republic of Iran—an authoritarian system with an anti-American ideology that, over its 47-year existence, has made the destruction of Israel and opposition to the United States central to its policies. This regime resembles a powerful war elephant standing on the edge of a precipice no thicker than one centimeter.
It is a government that has repeatedly circumvented sanctions, shows little fear of assassination or threats, and has consistently misled institutions ranging from human rights organizations and the European Union to the International Atomic Energy Agency under the guise of diplomacy. One may recall the statement by a senior IRGC commander: “With our ballistic missiles, all European capitals are within our range.”
This powerful elephant, supported by vast oil revenues and the economic networks it has constructed, projects power through the financing of proxy forces, nuclear brinkmanship, intimidation, and the violent repression of its own population. Yet, at this critical moment in the Middle East, it faces several major vulnerabilities:
- Lack of domestic legitimacy due to unprecedented killings of civilians during peaceful protests. Many Iranians are waiting for an opportunity to respond to the bloodshed in the streets.
- A deep economic crisis caused by sanctions. The war elephant has effectively lost its most important financial tool—the IRGC—as the European Union has designated it a terrorist organization.
- Weak defensive and air defense capabilities. The 12-day war clearly demonstrated that Iran’s airspace is largely undefended.
Under these conditions, and given the heavy U.S. military logistics in the region, the Islamic Republic lacks a decisive strategy to overcome the crisis—except what can be described as the elephant “walking on tiptoe.” (An expression referring to elephants attempting to avoid damage by moving cautiously, though often causing more destruction.) This strategy consists of calling for negotiations without reaching a final agreement, buying time, exhausting the crisis for other parties, and raising the cost of continued tension for the United States. As a last resort, Tehran would prefer a deal at minimal cost—an outcome that deeply concerns many Iranians, who fear that any agreement may ultimately prevent the collapse of the regime.
The King
What role does the United States play on this chessboard? The United States is the King. It cannot be compared to any other piece. The king is always the king. Washington is well-versed in negotiations with Iran, harbors deep mistrust, and past decisive achievements have given President Trump the confidence to consider military action against the Islamic Republic. However, even the king has serious weaknesses:
- The lack of sufficient international legitimacy for a military strike. President Trump’s military buildup far exceeds what would be required for a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) operation, and he is well aware that initiating a war could severely damage America’s political standing and global credibility.
- Arab allies, for various reasons—fear of proxy retaliation, uncertainty about a post-Iran future, and regional instability—continue to favor diplomacy over war. The United States does not wish to jeopardize lucrative Arab markets through instability caused by a war with Iran, especially if it is perceived as the initiator.
- Being trapped within a strategic triangle: one side representing regional security interests, another the operational and rhetorical credibility of President Trump, and the third the interests of America’s most important regional ally—Israel.
At this point, the option of a limited or partial agreement with Tehran is effectively removed, as it would contradict President Trump’s promises, Republican congressional statements, and broader U.S. strategic objectives. It must also be stated that Trump’s actions are driven primarily by American national interests; human rights resolutions or appeals from the Iranian public may rank among the lowest motivations for military action. Either negotiations must fully succeed—requiring Iran to accept all U.S. demands unconditionally, which appears unlikely—or military action must follow.
Within this framework, a symbolic or limited strike is effectively ruled out. Such an operation would not require this scale of military logistics or prolonged rhetorical escalation. Under current conditions and based on this analysis, the United States effectively faces one remaining option: a large-scale military strike should negotiations fail decisively.
The Queen
The behind-the-scenes player on the Middle East chessboard is Israel—a powerful piece. The queen possesses less authority than the king but greater operational power. Israel’s most critical asset is the intelligence capability of Mossad. According to unofficial reports, during the opening minutes of the 12-day war, 17 senior IRGC commanders were eliminated. Yet Israel’s vulnerabilities may be even more acute than those of the other two pieces:
- Time pressure. Prime Minister Netanyahu has only seven months until elections. The simultaneous alignment of two ideologically aligned leaders—Trump and Netanyahu—creates a narrow and time-limited window for permanently neutralizing the Islamic Republic. Israel must act within this period.
- The proxy problem. Netanyahu believes that destroying the head of the elephant—particularly when its trunk has already been cut—is the most effective way to paralyze proxy forces.
- Netanyahu’s domestic legal challenges, which have weakened the government internally. Most Israelis understand that the day Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, Tel Aviv would likely be targeted. For the sake of state credibility alone, the issue must be resolved before the window closes. Retaliatory actions by Iran remain unpredictable and could prolong a war—making time a critical factor for Israel.
- A missed opportunity. Israel has once reached the threshold of achieving its strategic objective—the complete neutralization of the Islamic Republic—but halted at the last moment due to a Trump-declared ceasefire. Israel is unlikely to let such an opportunity slip away a second time. While Israel is a powerful minister, it is one that becomes vulnerable if the game drags on.
Strategic Assessment
- Whoever strikes first loses. If the elephant strikes first, it provides justification for retaliation; if the king or queen strikes first, they face significant political costs. Trump seeks to increase political and economic pressure to provoke an Iranian reaction, thereby reframing U.S. action as defense rather than aggression.
- The Islamic Republic will continue the “tiptoeing elephant” strategy, as it lacks alternatives. Internal scenarios—such as announcing Khamenei’s death or staging a fabricated IRGC coup—are unlikely to prevent war under current conditions.
- While Trump may favor deal-making, Israel’s political environment is fully confrontational. Time moves far faster for Israel than for Trump.
- Regional states will ultimately follow the king’s lead if their security is ensured. President Trump’s political, financial, and executive power is not such that he would take strategic advice from countries like Turkey or Oman.
Conclusion
At this stage, three scenarios can be identified with relative certainty:
- Maximum pressure leading to Khamenei’s submission
- Maximum pressure forcing Iran into a reactive move (threats or preemptive action)
- Setting a deadline for negotiations, with military action following immediately upon their likely failure (as seen in the 12-day war)
But who will initiate the attack? As a reminder, during the 12-day war, the German Chancellor stated that “Israel did the dirty work of attacking the Islamic Republic.” The positioning of U.S. forces appears more defensive than offensive, aimed at containing the region and preventing potential irrational actions by Tehran. Israel, once a pretext is established, is likely to complete the unfinished “dirty work”—an act viewed by a significant portion of the Iranian public as both morally justified and a form of ethical retaliation.
