In this interview with The Wire about the ongoing United States (US)-Israeli conflict with Iran, Alon Ben-Meir, an Iraqi-born Jewish-American political scientist and seasoned West Asia negotiator, says that the “majority of Republicans, especially Evangelical Christians, support Israel no matter what Israel does or does not”. A former Senior Fellow and Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute and founder of the Center for Strategic Development, Ben-Meir has participated in informal negotiations involving Israel, Arab states and Turkey. He has also acted as a bridge between regional officials and engaged in Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian dialogue efforts. He remains a consistent supporter of the Arab Peace Initiative and a strong advocate of a negotiated two-state solution.A prolific commentator, Ben-Meir writes for The Jerusalem Post and appears on platforms such as CNN and Al Jazeera. In the course of this interview, he tells Farooq Shah: “The current Israeli government is biting more than it can chew; it has paid dearly because of the Gaza war”. According to him, “Iran’s aspiration to obtain nuclear weapons is not to annihilate Israel but to deter it from further attacking Iran in the future.” He says that the killing 175 children, in the school in Minab, Iran, bombed on the first day of the attacks, is “something Iranians will not forget”, while both the US and Iran miscalculated the scale and impact of this conflict. He also speaks about the lack of direction in US policy, which has left the Donald Trump administration “stuck not knowing what to do next”, especially after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. Excerpts from the interview:Alon Ben-Meir, former Senior Fellow and Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute and founder of the Center for Strategic Development.There is an argument circulating among some commentators that Israel initiated the current conflict in Iran independently and that the United States (US) effectively joined after the fact. From your understanding, how accurate is this characterisation of the decision-making behind the war?This argument is totally incorrect. Israel and the US have fully coordinated this unfortunate attack. Albeit [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu pushed [US President Donald] Trump to agree, making the case that unless there is regime change in Iran, we should not expect this regime to ever agree to dismantle its nuclear program and certainly not its ballistic missile production. Furthermore, Netanyahu argued that Iran is at its weakest state at this juncture, which offered a window of opportunity to attack, an opportunity that may not present itself later.Given the geographical distance between the US and West Asia, why does Washington appear so readily drawn into confrontations involving Israel? Many voices within the US question policies that seem to place American leadership, whether under Trump or previous administrations, in the position of playing second fiddle to Israel. How do you explain this persistent strategic posture?That is, unfortunately, the case. The US is not necessarily playing second fiddle to Israel. That said, Israel exerts substantial influence on America’s foreign policy, especially in connection with West Asia and, in particular, in relation to Iran and the Palestinians. The powerful pro-Israel lobby – AIPAC – plays a major role in promoting Israel’s interests in all US political circles, especially among Congressional policymakers, and does so through financial contributions. And of course, there is the religious dimension; a majority of Republicans, especially Evangelical Christians, support Israel no matter what Israel does or does not [do]. They exert tremendous influence on the administration to come to Israel’s aid under any circumstances.Both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu appear to believe that decapitating Iran’s leadership or striking critical command structures could destabilise the regime. Yet Iran has long anticipated such contingencies and built safeguards against them. Given that, why pursue a war that Trump himself once described as a “little excursion”? What strategic logic might explain it?Sadly, if not tragically, there was no clear idea about what the purpose of the attack was, as Trump kept shifting his reasons behind it, from regime change, to the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, to the elimination of Iran’s stockpile of ballistic missiles to prevent Iran from threatening its neighbours. Having failed to achieve any of these objectives, Trump is now stuck not knowing what to do next, especially now that Iran has decided to close the Strait of Hormuz, causing havoc in the global oil supply chain.What makes matters worse is that Trump still lacks an exit strategy. Regardless of how the war ends, there will be no winners, only losers. To be sure, the war was ill-fated from the start.Critics argue that the strategic goal behind the war is not merely security concerns but the removal of Iran as the principal obstacle to Israeli regional dominance. How do you respond to that interpretation of Israel’s motivations?There is a lot of talk about Israel’s aspiration to become the region’s dominant power. This is true, but then it is not up to Israel or the US to secure Israel’s aspirations. The current Israeli government is biting more than it can chew; it has paid dearly because of the Gaza war, and it will pay dearly more for instigating the war against Iran. Those who suggest that Israel has gained considerably from this war are badly mistaken, as time will tell.One view is that Iran’s broader strategic goal is to push the United States out of the Middle East entirely. Do you see the current conflict potentially leading to a significant reduction of US military presence in the region?Not at all. The US may have to further augment its forces rather than scale them down in the region. As I said earlier, Iran, too, has badly miscalculated what the US might or might not do.Israel is currently confronting multiple security fronts and persistent regional tensions. Is there a risk of strategic overstretch? How sustainable is Israel’s military posture in a prolonged conflict scenario?Israel has security problems which will persist as long as there is no solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. That said, Israel, with the support of the US, will maintain military superiority and will be in a position to deal with any future threat. However, Israel will have to live by the sword for as long as the eye can see until it realises that only peace with the Palestinians provides it with the security it seeks.Some analysts have warned about the risk, however remote, of nuclear escalation if the conflict intensifies. How realistic do you believe such a scenario is, and what mechanisms exist to prevent it?I do not think that the risk for nuclear escalation is high. Although Israel would have liked to bomb Iran to smithereens, the use of nuclear weapons is simply not in the cards. Israel is not existentially threatened, and no one in the highest echelon of the Israeli government or the military is even contemplating such a horrific idea, knowing that the repercussions will be hard to imagine.Theodore Postol, professor of nuclear science and international security at MIT, has harshly criticised Netanyahu, calling him a “homicidal maniac” and warning that he could potentially resort to nuclear weapons. He maintains that Iran is not yet a nuclear power but could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, as its enriched uranium stockpile could yield around ten atomic bombs – more than enough, he claims, to wipe out Israel. That sounds terrifying, doesn’t it?Yes, it sounds terrifying, but not realistic. Given the level of destruction to the nuclear infrastructure that Iran has sustained, and even though Iran has a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity, still buried underground enough to produce ten nuclear bombs, it will take Iran more than two years to produce a bomb and mount it on a ballistic missile. And that is only if Iran is left alone to do as it pleases without any outside interruption, which is not going to be the case.Moreover, Iran’s aspiration to obtain nuclear weapons is not to annihilate Israel but to deter it from further attacking Iran in the future. Iran knows that Israel has a nuclear second-strike capability that could wipe most of Iran off the map. There is a reason why two nuclear powers have not waged a war against each other since the US bombed Japan. All nuclear powers understand that the use of nuclear weapons leads to “mutual assured destruction”. Thus, the possession of nuclear weapons has and will continue to serve as a deterrence.Ali Khamenei was already 86 and might have passed in the normal course within a few years. But by killing him, didn’t Trump and Netanyahu risk turning him into a powerful martyr and rallying even disillusioned Iranians around the regime? In that sense, could Trump’s “little excursion” have actually strengthened Iran’s hardliners?The short answer is yes. Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, who was selected as the supreme leader, is known to be even more extremist than his father. I have said it time and again, Trump has badly miscalculated, and indeed, Netanyahu and Trump have turned the elder Khamenei into a martyr, and even disillusioned Iranians are rallying now around the regime.Reports surrounding the strike that hit an Iranian girls’ school, killing 175, mostly children, have been accompanied by conflicting explanations from figures such as Trump and US secretary of defence [now secretary of war] Pete Hegseth. When such tragedies are met with contradictory statements and limited accountability, what does that say about political leadership and the management of wartime narratives?Both Trump and his secretary of defence have been lying from the start and engaging in conflicting statements about the school bombing. Now, however, clear evidence has surfaced that it was a US Tomahawk missile that hit the school, and an investigation is presumably underway to determine exactly what and how that took place.When the official narrative behind the reason to wage war against Iran by Trump and his stooges keeps shifting, you can expect contradictory statements to fly around. Killing 175 children is something the Iranians will not forget, and tragically, some American soldiers will pay the price.You have argued that Washington and Tel Aviv should move toward a ceasefire and negotiations. Yet Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, has said Tehran is not seeking a ceasefire and will continue fighting, citing past broken agreements with the US. If that is Iran’s position, what realistic pathway do you see for hostilities to stop and diplomacy to begin?The war will come to an end in one form or another. That said, neither the US nor Israel will have achieved what they were hoping to accomplish. After a cooling period, the negotiations will resume because, in the final analysis, some form of a negotiated agreement will have to be achieved. It may take a year or even longer; nevertheless, since neither Iran nor Israel nor the US will disappear, they will have to find, at one point or another, a modus operandi with which they can live.If they don’t settle on a permanent solution, it will only be a matter of when the next conflagration occurs. I do believe, however, that this war may awaken all sides to the bitter reality that a permanent, peaceful solution is the only ultimate outcome that will serve the interests of all.A woman looks through a damaged wall of a residential building after a nearby police station was struck two days earlier in a US-Israeli attack in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 15, 2026. Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP.Your scholarship and back-channel diplomacy have long advocated a two-state solution. Yet voices pushing for compromise often face intense hostility, and the assassination of former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin remains a stark reminder of how contentious peace efforts can be. In today’s climate, is there still meaningful space within Israel for advocates of a two-state solution?I know that a growing number of people among the Israelis, Palestinians, and generally around the world believe that the prospect of a two-state solution is all but dead. I disagree. I have been saying that Israel will never see a day of peace unless the Palestinians realise their national aspiration, and unless the Palestinians know that they will never realise their dream unless Israel feels secure and at peace.That said, it will take a new Israeli government and a united Palestinian front to accept the inevitable. Beyond that, the US, in particular, which has been calling for a two-state solution, will have to act to facilitate such an outcome rather than simply talk about it. Yes, it is a tall order, but it is inevitable regardless of how much longer that might take.India, the world’s largest democracy with nearly 1.4 billion people, historically maintained a balanced position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the government of Narendra Modi, however, many observers feel New Delhi has moved closer to Tel Aviv. Critics say Netanyahu often leverages this relationship to suggest that India broadly supports Israel’s policies. In your view, how significant is India’s perceived alignment diplomatically, and could it carry reputational or strategic costs for India on the global stage?India and Israel cooperate in many fields, especially in technology, which is very important for both countries. India, however, has and continues to support the Palestinian cause, and like many other countries around the world that work closely with Israel, India does not link its support for the Palestinians to its interests in dealing with Israel.We ought to remember that, as early as 1988, India officially recognised Palestine as a state and has not changed its position since. The Indian position does not seem to entail any adverse reputational or strategic costs for India. Just like the 163 countries that recognised the Palestinian state, they still maintain diplomatic and economic relations with Israel while supporting the Palestinian cause.Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip has devastated much of the territory and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. At the same time, extremist rhetoric has surfaced, suggesting Gaza should be “turned into a parking lot” or even advocating the destruction of the Dome of the Rock to build a third Temple. Even if these are fringe voices, does such discourse risk pushing the conflict into a far more dangerous, even civilisational, direction?What Israel has done in Gaza is unforgivable. It has rendered Israel morally bankrupt. As much as Israel would like to rid Gaza of all Palestinians and make it uninhabitable for them, the Palestinians have no other place to go, and Israel simply cannot force them out. Israel does not want to turn Gaza into a parking lot; it wants to reoccupy Gaza, but then even Trump rejects the idea. No one in their right mind can talk so nonchalantly about destroying the Dome of the Rock and building a third Temple in its stead. This is a recipe for a religious war of such mammoth catastrophe that it is hard to contemplate.When this war ends, West Asia is unlikely to remain the same. Iran appears determined to push the US out of the region and has expanded the conflict by striking neighbouring states hosting American assets. Could this war fundamentally reshape the region’s strategic balance, and what kind of West Asia do you foresee emerging once the hostilities finally cease?No one can really say with any certainty what kind of West Asia will emerge post this Iran war. One thing, however, is clear. Every country in the region, especially Iran and Israel, will either agree to live in peace or fight each other for another 100 years. Both will continue to exist, but when everything is said and done, the Jews and Iranians (Persians) have had a millennium-long history of living closely together and cooperating in just about every field of endeavour. I do believe that that day will come. How soon? That will depend on how soon a new leadership rises to power in both countries who will see the light and restore sanity that was tragically absent all these decades.