Israel’s intensifying war on Iran would be impossible without U.S. support.

Tel Aviv is launching its attacks while assuming America will resupply its stocks of weapons. The U.S.-funded Iron Dome missile defense system and American forces are countering the impact of Iranian retaliation, and Washington is bolstering Israeli confidence by deploying ships to the region and pushing back against international criticism of Israeli actions.

Amid slim chances of a quick end to the conflict, as Iran strikes back and risks broadening the fighting, the worsening situation is inextricably tied to U.S. foreign policy ― and it’s echoing past American tendencies in the Middle East that have fueled chaos while taking a deadly toll there and stateside.

Given the ease of slipping into habits of violence without a strategy for encouraging peace, the danger is growing that President Donald Trump will usher in a new era of instability and perpetual, unpredictable war, spearheaded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long used conflict abroad to solidify power domestically. Iran is one of the strongest powers in the region and a firm critic of Israel; Netanyahu has for decades spoken of a full-scale war against the country but faced international pressure rooted in fear of massive bloodshed and dark global implications.

Now, “there is real fear here that Israel will not allow any country that it perceives as too big or influential to develop or progress,” a U.S. official in close contact with Middle Eastern counterparts told HuffPost. “Some of the [Persian] Gulf countries believe they will be in the crosshairs next too.”

Leaders of those nations have courted Trump, investing in his businesses and appealing to his ego, and are privately urging him to restrain Netanyahu. It seems, however, that his choices are driven by “just the last people who talked to him,” the official said.

The dynamic makes it hard to trust statements from Trump, like his weekend proclamations of wanting to see the war concluded through agreements reached between Israel and Iran, and Washington and Tehran. Conversely, the president also on Sunday suggested the U.S. could “get involved” to help Israel destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

Some government experts in Washington are frustrated and worried the U.S. is implicating itself in bloodshed and alienating foreign partners, risking a backlash, without a clear strategic reason, said the official, describing conversations with colleagues on condition of anonymity. The most likely eventual outcome of the Israel-Iran war remains some kind of agreement to limit Tehran’s nuclear program ― a prospect the Trump administration was already pursuing without active bombing in Israeli and Iranian cities.

“So what is the point?” the official asked. “It’s pointless destruction that does not make Israel more safe and in fact less safe.”

But a notable chorus of voices is suggesting there is a bigger point ― pushing claims similar to those that enabled the most consequential and widely criticized foreign policy decision in the region in living memory: America’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

Supporters of the Israeli offensive frequently speak of regime change in Tehran. Netanyahu linked his campaign to the idea of a popular revolt by Iranians against their leadership in an English-language video on Friday, saying Israel was “clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom …[the regime] has never been weaker.” His political opponent, Naftali Bennett, who would likely lead any alternative government in Israel if Netanyahu’s coalition collapsed, also posted what he framed as a message to the Iranian people on X on Saturday.

“Your time is now. Free yourselves from your cruel dictators,” Bennett wrote. “The people of Israel stand with you. The state of Israel …stands with you. The entire free world will stand with you. Do not miss this opportunity to achieve your freedom.”

Some in Washington are making similar assertions. “The Iranian people want a regime change,” Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), a firm Trump ally, said on Fox News on Sunday morning. “We could see a regime change sooner than we think.”

Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.), one of Netanyahu’s strongest proponents in the Democratic Party and an opponent of diplomacy with Tehran, issued an appeal on X to “Join Israel in extinguishing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ignite a movement within Iran to free itself of that cancerous regime.” And national security hawks, like Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, are arguing the war will produce an Iran that is not opposed to Israel or the U.S.

Visions of triumph are spreading across policy circles. Asked about Israel pursuing regime change, a former senior Biden administration official told Politico: “Why not? Sure. Wouldn’t that be grand?”

The narrative should be taken with a large grain of salt, however. The idea that communities will see foreigners attacking them as liberators has been disproven repeatedly ― and the reverse is common, where outside assaults fuel a rally-around-the-flag effect even around unpopular local leaders. Experts see chances of that effect as especially strong in Iran, where many have deep wariness of foreign meddling and are shaped by the memory of a vicious yearslong war in the 1980s following an invasion by Iraq (supported by the U.S.).

While Iranians have in recent years intensely challenged their repressive rulers, the rising civilian toll of the Israeli offensive, the fear of turmoil in their country and distaste for Netanyahu given his policies elsewhere, like pummeling Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, make a popular embrace of the war unlikely. Speaking to the Financial Times, an Iranian activist condemned the Israeli leader’s use of the Iranian protest slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.”

“That slogan coming out of the mouth of a criminal like him for his personal and political gain destroys its meaning,” Nastaran said. (The outlet did not provide her surname, likely for security reasons.)

Policy-makers’ blindness to nuance in the Middle East may be driving overly rosy thinking. Mills compared the situation in Iran to the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad last December, but the two contexts are very different. Assad, an Iranian ally who oversaw the slaughter of tens of thousands of his own people, faced stiffer local opposition, including among his own support base, and his regime had by 2024 been battered by 13 years of civil war.

To a large degree, the Biden administration’s doubling down on traditional and dubious U.S. foreign policy logic made the current escalation under Trump possible.

President Joe Biden could have reduced tensions around Iran’s nuclear program by fulfilling his campaign pledge to restore the Obama-era international deal limiting Iranian nuclear development in exchange for lifting sanctions on the country. (Trump tore up the deal during his last presidency.)

In that scenario, it’s unlikely Iran’s nuclear development would have grown in recent years ― the reason that Israel has cited for its current attack.

Instead, Biden-era officials were fearful of being portrayed as weak on Iran, which made them cautious in attempting diplomacy with Tehran, and reluctant to ease sanctions which Trump had imposed on the country.

“They tried to capitalize on Trump’s maximum pressure that they had all condemned when they were out of power in order to extract more concessions from the Iranians,” said Ali Vaez, an analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. “The Biden administration’s ambition for a longer and stronger deal resulted in no deal.”

Meanwhile, experts say the Biden administration courted disaster through its nearly-unchecked support for Netanyahu following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Netanyahu’s campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and then the Hamas ally Hezbollah in Lebanon faced thousands of allegations of war crimes and other violations of international law, while sparking unexpected new battles like an ongoing tit-for-tat between Israel and the Houthi militia in Yemen, which badly damaged global trade. Yet Biden refused to pressure Netanyahu by putting U.S. support for Israel in question ― even as dozens of lawmakers and human rights groups urged him to, saying Israel was breaking U.S. law in its use of American weapons.

The Biden administration “consolidated Israeli impunity in the sense that they basically set a precedent for Israel targeting civilians and being able to get away with it,” Vaez said.

Israeli tactics in the Iran war are beginning to resemble moves in Gaza and Lebanon, like orders by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for civilians to abandon certain areas with no specifics on when they can return. Sometimes cast as evidence of Israel’s regard for civilians, such orders have repeatedly failed to prevent massacres.

Defenders of Biden’s record say the president astutely helped Israel weaken enemies across the region, and appear to see Israel’s current Trump-backed offensive as a continuation of his policies. Brett McGurk, Biden’s deeply controversial chief adviser on the Middle East, has in recent days used his position as a CNN commentator to praise Israel’s strikes as “extraordinary.” (McGurk also helped shape the U.S.’ ill-fated post-invasion policies in Iraq, which drove the rise of the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS.)

Meanwhile, the chief U.S. military commander for the Middle East, Michael Kurilla, coordinated heavy U.S. support for Israel under Biden, and has under Trump advocated internally for supporting Israeli attacks on Iran, with Israeli and American officials supportive of the idea becoming determined to launch such attacks before Kurilla’s leaves his post later this year. Amid the current internal debate in the Trump administration, Kurilla is seeking greater U.S. resources to aid the Israelis.

With Trump largely following Biden’s pattern in handling Netanyahu so far, observers who say that is unwise hope the president will eventually change course.

“There is a wide understanding ― including among people who supported Israel post-Oct. 7 ― that we created a massive moral hazard… by giving blanket support [and] defending Israel no matter what it did,” the U.S. official said, referring to a situation in which one actor takes bigger risks because they know another actor will pay the price.

Biden, the official said, set “the precedent that this is what the U.S. does.”