by Asad Mirza
After Israeli strikes in June and the American bombing of three Iranian nuclear installations on the ninth day of the conflict, the Trump administration had declared that Iran’s nuclear programme was finished. Tehran, however, continues to insist that its programme is civilian and not intended for weapons development.
It has been only forty-seven days since the Iran-Israel war ended. The fragile peace in the Middle East is just over a month old, yet the possibility of a new conflict is already looming.
The situation has grown tense again after the twelve-day conflict between Iran and Israel in June. The United States and Israel are threatening fresh strikes on Iran’s nuclear programme, while Tehran has declared that uranium enrichment will continue.
Both sides are issuing threats and counter-statements. A senior army officer close to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has claimed that Washington is unable to attack Iran because of its economic and military limitations.
Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen channel that, “If the US feels that it cannot defeat Iran through war and wants to negotiate for a real solution, then we will respond positively. But if the talks are an excuse to prepare for war, then it is useless for us.” His remarks suggested the possibility of a diplomatic settlement, while also casting doubt on America’s intentions.
France, the United Kingdom and Germany have warned Iran that if it does not return to nuclear talks and deliver tangible results by the end of August, United Nations sanctions may be reinstated. After Israeli strikes in June and the American bombing of three Iranian nuclear installations on the ninth day of the conflict, the Trump administration had declared that Iran’s nuclear programme was finished. Tehran, however, continues to insist that its programme is civilian and not intended for weapons development.
In practice, with nuclear talks stalled and tensions mounting, both sides are preparing for renewed confrontation. Iran is strengthening its military readiness, while Israel and the United States repeatedly threaten military action.
At a press conference in Tehran on Monday, 18 August, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei warned that unchecked Israeli expansionism could plunge the Middle East into “endless wars.” He criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent remarks promoting the vision of a “Greater Israel,” which he described as encompassing occupied Palestinian territories and parts of neighbouring Arab states.
Baghaei said this vision exposed Israel’s domineering and expansionist agenda. He noted that the recent visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s deputy director general to Iran was intended to establish new guidelines for cooperation following Israeli and American attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Further talks between Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog are expected in the coming days.
The General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, which commands both the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards, issued a stern warning to the United States and Israel. In a statement released on Saturday, 16 August, during commemorations for prisoners of war from Iraq, it declared that any renewed aggression against Iran would be met with a crushing response far stronger than that witnessed during the twelve-day war in June.
The statement was followed on Sunday, 17 August, by a warning from a senior military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader that another war with Israel or the United States was likely, describing the current ceasefire as only another stage in the conflict.
General Yahya Rahim Safavi of the Revolutionary Guards declared, “We are not in a ceasefire. We are in a state of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the US or Israel. I think another war may happen, and after that, there may be no more wars.”
His remarks were the latest in a series of confrontational statements from commanders on both sides. Israel’s army chief had pledged readiness for further strikes, while Iran’s General Staff warned of a response “far stronger” than that seen during the June conflict.
As tensions rose, Middle East analyst Trita Parsi said he believed an all-out war could begin again by the end of August. He argued that Israel would not be able to sustain such a conflict without full American support.
Parsi noted that while both Israel and Iran kept their weapons stockpiles concealed, Western intelligence believed Iran retained 1,600 missiles capable of reaching Israel. By contrast, Israel was reported to be running low on missile interceptors, including the Arrow 3 system. “The exact levels are unknown, but much indicates that Israel could not have continued the war much longer unless the US entered it fully,” Parsi told the Express US.
According to him, Israel appeared to be relying on American assistance. Writing in Foreign Policy, he suggested that Israel might launch another war with Iran before December, possibly as early as late August. He added that Iran was already preparing for such a confrontation. During the first twelve-day war, Tehran had paced its missile attacks, expecting a prolonged conflict.
Parsi argued that Iran’s approach revealed two important points. The first was that Iran could sustain a war of attrition. The second was that its strategy could change in the event of another conflict. “In the next round, however, Iran is likely to strike decisively from the outset, aiming to dispel any notion that it can be subdued under Israeli military dominance,” he wrote. He warned that the next war would be bloodier than the first and posed serious risks for the United States if it chose to intervene.
Parsi added that Israel’s war in June was not only about Iran’s nuclear programme. He claimed it was about altering the balance of power in the Middle East. “For more than two decades, Israel has pushed the United States to take military action against Iran to weaken it and restore a favourable regional balance, one that Israel cannot achieve on its own,” he wrote.
He explained that Israel’s strikes had three objectives beyond targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. They sought to draw the United States into direct conflict with Iran, to remove Iran’s leadership, and to turn the country into another Syria or Lebanon, vulnerable to repeated strikes without American involvement. Only the first of these aims was realised. The United States was drawn into the conflict, but Iran’s leadership remained intact, and its nuclear programme was not destroyed.
Despite these developments, the chances of another war between Iran and Israel appeared slim. Israel was focused on removing Palestinians from Gaza and annexing more unauthorised territory, actions that had not yet provoked strong international condemnation. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump was preoccupied with tariff disputes and domestic political and economic challenges. Analysts suggested he was unwilling to start another foreign war, which could ultimately prove politically disastrous.
(The writer is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs, environmental issues, and interfaith relations, as well as a media consultant. Ideas are personal.)
