The Middle East is ablaze. But with the recent escalation between Iran and Israel, where do the sources of escalation lie? And what historical mistakes do we need to understand to forge a path to peace? University College London's, Christian Emery, argues that this escalation is a failure of America's restraint. The US's rightful fear of a regional war has restrained its might. But now is the time for Trump to make a firm commitment in either direction. Strategic ambiguity has failed, and the world now waits for Trump to decide its fate.

What began as a devastating but targeted Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear programme and senior military leadership on 13 June has, with bleak predictability, escalated into both sides striking densely populated areas indiscriminately. Israel is now issuing an impossible warning to Tehran’s residents—one chillingly familiar to the civilians of Gaza and Lebanon: leave, or face death or injury. Both sides are vowing to inflict a heavy human cost, but the imbalance in military power means only Israel—thanks to its total air superiority—can carry out large-scale airstrikes largely at will. Iran must ration its remaining supply of ballistic missiles, but it still has escalatory options that could significantly raise the cost of this war to the global community, though this comes with serious risks.

How we arrived at this disastrous war is as much a story of the failure of U.S. restraint as it is of Israel’s reckless calculation that this is the moment to eliminate, once and for all, the threat of a nuclear Iran—and perhaps even the regime itself. Indeed, now Israel has crossed the Rubicon, where America’s commitment to restraint now stands requires the more urgent analysis. This is because, by day five of the war, it’s clear that despite the stark asymmetry in military capabilities between Iran and Israel, Israel is unlikely to achieve its two stated war aims—eliminating Iran’s entire nuclear and ballistic missile production capacity, let alone its fantastical aim of regime change—without U.S. assistance. Drawing the U.S. into the conflict, is thus a central part of Israel’s strategy.

SUGGESTED VIEWING The rules of war With Malcolm Rifkind, Mary Ann Sieghart, Bronwen Maddox, Yanis Varoufakis, Jeremy Corbyn

There are two possible routes for Israel to draw the U.S. into this war. The first is to tempt Trump into believing that, now Israel has systematically dismantled Iran’s air defences, U.S. bombers could strike unopposed, and after a few sorties dropping 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, Trump can claim credit for permanently destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and formally ending all cooperation with the IAEA could provide some political cover for doing so.

The second, and more likely, route involves Israel continuing to pummel Iran with impunity—potentially targeting critical water and electricity infrastructure—until Iran feels it has no option but to escalate despite the risks. This might involve attacking Gulf shipping or refineries, or even attempting to block the Strait of Hormuz, in turn compelling the U.S. to intervene in its longstanding role as guarantor of maritime security in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has quickly recognised the extreme risk of drawing the U.S. into the conflict. This is why it has so far refrained from authorising its proxies to target U.S. personnel or threaten Gulf shipping, and why it is reportedly sending messages to Washington saying it wants a ceasefire and offering to resume nuclear talks—on the condition that America stays out of the war.

Twenty years of restraint