Claims that the Trump administration was drawn into a trap by Israel are being voiced more and more frequently with each passing day. The assumption that the Iranian regime would collapse after the elimination of its leadership circle did not materialize. The war unfolded in a manner very different from what the U.S. administration had anticipated. America’s allies in the Gulf suffered severe damage from the conflict. The global cost of the war will be far higher than expected.

The failure of U.S. President Donald Trump’s initial expectations at the beginning of the war, or a strategic miscalculation, is making it difficult to formulate an exit strategy. At the outset of the war, the U.S. was willing to accept a repositioning of Iran through a change in behavior based on either actor-level or regime-level change. In other words, it believed that a collapsed and dysfunctional state order in Iran would not serve its interests.

However, developments on the ground have unfolded differently, and as the days pass, the U.S. is increasingly compelled to move closer to Israel’s ultimate and more radical plan. This is because stepping back has become difficult, while keeping the war limited is also becoming increasingly challenging. Just as Israel gradually pushed the U.S. toward a war against Iran in the Middle East, it is now attempting, as the war continues, to pull Washington toward its own maximalist calculations regarding Iran’s future.

As explained at length in the previous article, Israel’s objective is clear: the complete collapse and dysfunction of the Iranian state. To this end, the first step was to target the leadership circle to eliminate the center of decision-making. The attacks were then escalated in stages, beginning with long-range missile and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities and extending to all types of military production facilities.

Now Iran’s strategic infrastructure and the system’s vital components are being targeted. Oil refineries are being rendered inoperable. From this point onward, Israel and the U.S. will likely intensify their attacks on Iran, targeting everything from electricity and internet infrastructure to water resources and all forms of logistical infrastructure that allow the population to sustain daily life. By making life increasingly difficult, they aim to psychologically break society and thereby eliminate the social shield that protects the state and the regime.

Thus, by drawing the Trump administration along with it, Israel favors an Iran that has lost its functionality and would take a long time to recover, similar to what occurred in Iraq in the recent past. Trump’s recent statement about ensuring that Iran becomes "no longer a threat once and for all” reflects the intellectual manifestation of this strategy.

However, Israel’s plans, based on the assumption that the U.S. will support it in every scenario, may not succeed.

First of all, even if attacks against Iran intensify, Iran is not merely a state and governing structure. The existing system is a multilayered structure driven by ideological motivation, whose actors see themselves as the very custodians of the state. The issue of ownership of the state should not be treated too simplistically, particularly when economic and everyday life structures are taken into account.

Collapsing and rendering the state dysfunctional may not be as easy as assumed. At the same time, Iranian society possesses a historical memory of resistance and a strong motivation for recovery. The 1953 coup, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, and the long-standing sanctions regime have all strengthened this psychological and sociological resilience.

The rising global costs of the war, the increasing risk of losing the November elections, and the possibility that Trump’s personal expectations may not materialize, thus damaging his political stature, may shorten the duration of the conflict.

In response to Israel’s plan to pursue maximalist objectives, Trump may seek to create the conditions for a cease-fire by gradually transferring the burden of the war to Israel and reducing U.S. support. As a result, Israel may be forced to revise its maximalist posture.