US and Israel attacked: What's next for Trump after Iran?

By: Ricardo Israel - 01/03/2026

Just like last year, when the 15-day deadline set by Trump expired, the US and Israel launched coordinated bombing campaigns. Apparently, the US president didn't want to continue "negotiating" with a regime that was doing what it has done every time since 1979: simply stalling, hoping time would run out and the other side would tire of the situation. How long will this offensive last? We don't know, because Israel's 12-day war or the US's in-and-out attack are no longer relevant, since this time Trump has acknowledged that the goal is regime change, and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed.

Iran appears even weaker, though this time better prepared to absorb the blows and react. Undoubtedly, Trump's stated objective is more ambitious, as he speaks of the end of the Islamic Republic (difficult in my opinion), while simultaneously calling on the people to rebel once the bombing stops. Israel declared a state of emergency, closed its airspace, and urged its citizens to seek refuge in the shelter system that has saved so many lives. Netanyahu spoke in terms of an existential struggle for his country.

In 2024, when Iran attacked, and in 2025, when it retaliated against the Israeli offensive, the damage was less extensive. Not only were the vast majority of the missiles intercepted by Israel's defense system, but, significantly, several Arab countries collaborated to intercept Iranian missiles. Furthermore, last year, Israeli aircraft crossed Arab territory en route to Tehran. The question remains whether Iran will use chemical or biological weapons this time, which would cause incomparably greater destruction from any that manage to get through.

In any case, Iran left no alternative, recalling the many times Maduro rejected very advantageous offers in Venezuela. This time, everything indicates that Ayatollah Khamenei preferred the martyrdom of his people, somewhat like Hitler when the Soviets had already reached Berlin. In any case, my impression is that for now the Islamic Republic survives, although we don't know if the will to continue with the remnants of the nuclear program will. However, given the air superiority that Israel demonstrated and imposed, it will almost certainly destroy the drone program and the missile program that could reach even Europe. Everything points to another humiliating defeat for Iran, although only negotiations could put an end to the nuclear program, however weakened the ayatollahs may be.

In this new scenario, Israel could also move against Hamas, or at least ensure the consolidation of the Yellow Line that currently divides Gaza in two, with almost the entire population still under the control of the terrorist group. This would give a chance to the second phase of the only existing peace plan—Trump's, despite the criticism it receives—since otherwise many Arab countries will not send peacekeeping troops while this terrorist threat persists, nor will there be any reconstruction. Furthermore, in this changed Middle East, it is possible that, aside from general statements of condemnation, neither Hezbollah nor the Houthis will react significantly militarily, given the blows they have suffered since 2023. Nor would I be surprised if the current Syrian government supports Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon, given the role this group played in defending the al-Assad dictatorship during the civil war.

Meanwhile, Europe continues to sink into irrelevance, a continent where some countries stood idly by while thousands of peaceful protesters were massacred. Not only France, but for the first time in a long time, the United Kingdom is not only abstaining but actively obstructing the US, a clear statement of intent after the US fought in two world wars to save itself from defeat by Germany. Norway mistakenly speaks of “illegality” and a violation of the UN Charter, as such a violation would require a non-veto resolution from the Security Council.

I don't believe a regional war will emerge from this, just as one didn't appear after Hamas's invasion of Israel, with the proxies in a seven-front war and with the direct intervention of Iran, what was just another war between Israel and the Palestinians turned into an anti-Western jihad, to which we must add what happened in major cities in the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia, in support of Hamas, with anti-Semitism unleashed and calls to "globalize the intifada".

In Iran, we can expect the mobilization of minorities such as the Kurds, so often betrayed in the region, not only in Iran but also in Syria and Iraq, as well as those who want to recreate the Balochistan of the Persian Empire, and Arab minorities. This time, Iran has prepared to react immediately, not in stages as last year, and attacks have already taken place against US bases scattered across various Arab countries, as well as against Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, which were inexplicably attacked after refusing to support the US attack, and now, after being attacked themselves, have joined the anti-Tehran front.

Will Iran break apart territorially? Let's remember that it's not only a country where a religious dictatorship was imposed in 1979, but also the heir to one of the greatest empires of antiquity, the Persian Empire. We don't know; this is a fear, especially among Sunni Arab countries, given that there is a minority of that origin crushed by Shiism—a conflict that has lasted at least 13 centuries and is reminiscent of Protestants versus Catholics in Europe. At the very least, the punishment will be severe, since, in his second national address, Trump spoke of the destruction of the Persian navy and missile industry.

The US has a strong interest in preventing this war, like last year's, from dragging on, as it would be an electoral disaster for Trump, even among his supporters, who do not believe in military interventions of this kind abroad, not even in Ukraine. The situation is different for Israel, although both countries are now urging the Iranians not to let this opportunity slip away. Trump has repeatedly stated that this time they have the full support of the US, as well as his personal commitment, declaring his willingness to do what no other US president has ever done: "The hour of your freedom is near." "Stay indoors. Don't leave your homes. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be falling everywhere." However, he then added, "When we're done, take control of your government. It will belong to you," implying the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

What comes after Iran?

We already know the answer, as it was foreshadowed by the State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 24th. His speech before Congress clarified President Trump's priorities for the nation and the world, since most of the available time was dedicated to his strategy for winning the midterm elections, which are now an uphill battle. All indications are that he will lose, as is typical in the US during these midterm elections, which generally favor the opposition, with the exception of Clinton. A loss would render the current president and his program "lame duck," as from that moment on, all attention would shift to the next presidential election, in which Trump cannot compete. Therefore, his speech clearly included announcements about distributing tariff revenue to the population.

There would certainly be losers on the international stage. For starters, attention to Venezuela and Cuba would diminish or take on a different prominence than democratization, especially since the democratic opposition in both countries doesn't seem to have a direct channel to the president, as has been evident in the protectorate that has been established in Venezuela, up to this point, regarding the oil issue, or the prominent presence of former deputy Enrique Márquez in Congress that night, demonstrating that, even if she wins the next presidential election, María Corina Machado (MCM) is not the White House's favorite. Moreover, neither in Venezuela nor in Cuba does a quick resolution seem likely, since the only certainty in elections, with the difficulty that the November election appears to present, is that Washington can change its mind and priorities. The problem isn't so much that the U.S. will intervene even more, but rather, in my opinion, that it will lose interest.

Therefore, everything indicates that MCM must return to Venezuela to carry out the grassroots organizing that allowed him to sweep the primaries and also enabled the opposition to win with Edmundo González on July 28. Since, of course, the dictator is gone, but the dictatorship remains, there is a personal security issue. Pressure must be exerted on the White House so that Delcy Rodríguez herself personally guarantees his protection to prevent arbitrary arrest. Furthermore, as in other transitions, she can become a legitimate interlocutor with whom to negotiate democratization, and not just with Rubio.

Similarly, phase 2 of the Gaza peace plan is unlikely to progress without Hamas disarming. Likewise, with the White House's focus elsewhere, efforts to secure a Russian ceasefire in Ukraine will be hampered.

With the path Iran will take now defined, even if the issue remains unresolved, all the energy of the Trump administration will be focused on trying to win the election. There will certainly be developments, as well as winners and losers, since, during an election period, nothing distracts Washington or Trump from that goal. And on Tuesday the 24th, the president informed the US and the world of this. To begin with, regarding the tariffs, many people rushed to comment without having read the Supreme Court ruling, since, although it ruled against them, it was the Supreme Court itself that indicated to the president how he should proceed.

Indeed, besides rejecting the legal path followed by the Trump administration, the most striking aspect of the ruling is the solution it opens for the government in its operative part, which should not be surprising, since, due to its special characteristics, the Supreme Court has done so in other rulings throughout history, as it not only acts as a court of law, but, above all, in its dual role of also being a Constitutional Court.

Since joining the Chilean Constitutional Court, I've made it a habit to read the Supreme Court's rulings, admiring that, in general, their decisions use language accessible to any educated and interested person, without resorting to unnecessarily technical arguments. That's how I read the ruling, and what it says is that, as expected, tariffs are a form of tax, and as such, the constitution reserves their power to Congress. However, the majority vote indicates that there are other avenues open to the president, for example, legislation that allows tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. In that sense, this path, which has already received approval, would be open to the White House, exceeding the 10% limit it imposed on itself in other cases. Thus, the European Union quickly requested that what had already been negotiated be maintained, and another country as important as Japan has already announced that, despite the court ruling, it will maintain its announced investment program exactly as planned. And all this, despite all the annoyance and unnecessary criticism from President Trump.

Since elections are won more by money than by what happens in other countries, the importance of the family economy becomes evident in the announcements that emerged in the Plenary Session of Congress on Tuesday the 24th, when Trump made public that he will seek to spend US$1,776 (also a reference to the independence of the USA) dollars to be given to low-income taxpayers along with a new program, where a bank account will be opened for every newborn American so that they can be invested in popular capitalism and receive it when they turn 18, that is, public spending that helps win the next election.

It was also a speech where there were abundant nods to the MAGA base with decorations to military personnel of different generations, including those who participated in the capture of Maduro as well as in the Trump intervention those who today would lead the Republican duo, that is, Vice President Vance and Marco Rubio, in that order.

In any case, the position China gained from the problem it created for the US with its rare earth embargo remains unresolved. China earned the almost unique privilege of negotiating tariffs on equal terms, meaning that if an agreement is reached, the combined power of both economies is so immense that, for all practical purposes, it will be equivalent to the new rules of the game, replacing those that are disappearing. Therefore, every other country, large or small, will have to join, whether it wants to or not.

Moreover, this aligns with the National Security Strategy 2025, which states that in addition to the technological shift represented by Artificial Intelligence, competition with China will be decided at the economic level. To this end, the U.S. is focusing on the so-called Western Hemisphere of the Monroe Doctrine, plus the Trump corollary, that is, Latin America and the Caribbean. However, unlike during the Cold War, China is a very different rival than the now-defunct USSR, due to its economic power, which makes it the main economic partner of many countries in the region. For this competition, the U.S. currently has nothing of equivalent infrastructure appeal to the Headquarters Road Initiative, since even the Chinese debt trap is as attractive, or even more so, to some countries than Wall Street conditions, at least in the immediate future.

Furthermore, Latin America has not fully grasped that trade is not the defining characteristic of our current moment, and that what is now driving Washington to dismantle the rules it itself established after the Second World War is geopolitics. The latest example of this error is the Kast administration in Chile, where the U.S. has sanctioned three officials for attempting to establish a direct communications cable between Chile and China. This action, rather than being directed against a failing government like Boric's that will leave power on March 11th, should be understood as a warning, a notification to the new government taking office that day, that the U.S. is not seeking a trade partner this time, but a geopolitical ally.

As the White House's focus shifts to winning the election, it's necessary to assess how certain international elements, which have been crucial until now, are likely to continue operating on autopilot. In the case of Europe, it's essential to emphasize the importance of Marco Rubio's speech in Munich regarding what the continent has seemingly abandoned: the defense of the West. This issue will determine factors of both closeness and distance, given the limited progress toward peace in Ukraine.

In the Middle East, depending on how the unlikely possibility of regime change in Iran unfolds, and in the case of Gaza, the announced billions of dollars, without the disarmament of Hamas, are unlikely to make any progress in reconstruction if the terrorist group maintains its destructive capacity. Furthermore, without a second phase, the Peace Council, which appears to be a trial balloon to replace the UN, will likely fail. The UN has long since ceased to fulfill its primary mission of peacekeeping, mainly due to irrelevance, corruption, bias, and an unhealthy obsession with Israel, a country that can hardly afford for Hamas to become a new Hezbollah. Perhaps Israel will decide to support a rival militia of Hamas if the Yellow Line divides Gaza in half. Finally, Israel may also distance itself from the US in the near future if the latter decides to support the creation of a Palestinian state, still a requirement demanded by Saudi Arabia for signing the Abraham Accords.

In the case of Hamas, even if a future Palestinian state is demilitarized, nothing will be achieved without simultaneous deradicalization similar to the German denazification process, with the added factor that Hamas's defeat was military. However, being a movement similar to Hezbollah—that is, simultaneously a political-religious movement that provides salaries and fulfills educational, health, and social security functions that the state fails to provide—it can survive through these means. Furthermore, cases like those of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, both currently very active in Africa, demonstrate how they can remain relevant.

However much Israel has achieved a development that, for the first time, at a very low cost, achieves a laser beam capable of intercepting rockets and missiles, the invasion of October 7 remains an example that human resources continue to be more important than technological innovations.

That is only a brief overview of the issues that would remain pending until the US, Trump, and the White House overcome what is currently their most important challenge: winning the midterm elections in November. For now, Iran continues to demonstrate that there is no way to fulfill what Sun Tzu hoped for two and a half millennia ago: that the best victory was to win without fighting.

No, at least not in the Middle East.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».