The Israeli conflict is Iran’s vanity war

Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the second period of Trump means to Washington, business and the world

The writer is the director of the Chatham House program, the Middle East and North Africa

Three men – the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khawni, and US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – stand at the center of the war that reveals between Israel and Iran. Everyone has an ideological condemnation, personal style and strategic instinct to form their leadership paths. Now, their global arrogance and views collide with the consequences of the wider Middle East. In war, not only important policies – characters do it too. In fact, the aspirations of leaders often direct history than armies or institutions.

Khamenei, 86, spent more than three decades at the head of the Islamic Republic. While he was often acting as a cautious cleric who risen virtual after the death of Ayatollah Rohla Khomeini in 1989, he showed the ability to adapt the shrewd and a fixed strategic vision. His leadership was distinguished by the deep doubt of the West and the steadfast faith in the mission of the Islamic Republic as the vanguard of resistance against Western imperialism and the Israeli aggression at the expense of the Iranian people.

During the era of Khounai, the Islamic Republic has turned from an internal appearance aids into an ambitious actor who expected the regional authority through its alleged network of stability in Iraq, Syria and the agents of the agent in Lebanon and Yemen.

The character of Khameneni – the account and solidity ideologically – was of assets and responsibility. The regime was allowed to bear threats on the Iranian border during the United States invaded 2001 and 2003 for Afghanistan and Iraq. His instinct, which was honored by years of staying in a volatile area, was avoiding escalation and playing widely for time. While he supported negotiations before the 2015 nuclear deal, it remained permanently skeptical of our intentions – always for fear that Washington’s broader goal is to change the system.

This is the lack of confidence in the small window in Iran from the opportunities after the 2015 nuclear deal. Instead of enabling moderate such as President Hassan Rohani, Hafez Khaneni has a hostile situation. This included the intensification of nuclear enrichment, support for strikes against Saudi oil facilities and the strengthening of allied militias such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al -Hath, with the increasing rounds of brutal repression at home.

In recent months, Khamanni has supported negotiations with the Trump administration in the hope of saving Iran’s economy from international sanctions, corruption and mismanagement. He hoped to rehabilitate his falling legitimacy by planning the caliphate. But Israel’s strikes determine a rupture.

Now, the biggest challenge in his term faces the war that threatens the foundations of his carefully fortified regime. If this shakes the stability of the system or if my crude is seen as a stable, this may represent the end of Iran’s theocrat.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, the most polarized person in Israeli policy, explained that this regime surrender, if not the change of the system, is a major goal. He built his career on charisma, polarized rhetoric, a strange ability to outperform its competitors and read the history that depicts the Jews as always under the siege. This global view determines its response to both diplomacy and war. His opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015, and a position on Iran’s broader threat to Israeli security and eventually supporting Ibrahim’s agreements more than personal condemnation than the Israeli popular opinion.

In the wake of the Hamas attacks on October 7 and the devastating war in Gaza, Netanyahu was accused of allowing home divisions to pay attention to security threats and faced international isolation. However, his instinct remained in a force, avoiding the settlement and outperforming his enemies. Now it is widely seen as the man who took the fighting directly to Tehran.

Finally, there is Trump, which is on the horizon on this crisis. The rush and transactions, his decision in 2018 to withdraw from one side of the Iranian nuclear deal – after the direct pressure from the leaders of Israel and the Gulf – and the start of the maximum pressure campaign that forced Tehran on the corner.

Trump’s foreign policy lacks consistency, but not the effect. His relationship with Netanyahu helped stimulate Ibrahim 2020 agreements, a vision of Israel’s integration in the new Middle East. However, his approach has caught the credibility of the United States, which left the allies concerned about America’s reliability and competitors such as our raws is unable to move in the inability to predict it. Instead of showing a fixed leadership, Trump left the world to guess American military action in Iran. He said, “I may do that. I may not do that,” and he promised a decision in the next two weeks, which sustains anxiety.

This conflict is more than just a military confrontation. It is a clash of old age leaders who are now keen to secure their heritage. Khamna, Netanyahu and Trump paved the way for war with decades of miscalculation and fortification. Many will now depend on whether Netanyahu believes that his legacy requires complete victory, and whether Khameneini concludes that staying requires an escalation or a compromise, and whether Trump is speeding up a regional account.

Their instincts in the coming days will not only determine the results of this war, but it is likely to be the future of the Islamic Republic, the credibility of the American authority and the stability of the Middle East already broken.

Israel’s war, Iran: To what extent will you go? Join FT joint web With Sanam Vakil and FT experts on Wednesday 25 June at 1300-1400 BST (1200-1300 GMT) and put your questions on the team