A former Iranian ambassador to Jordan has warned that the United States is deliberately conveying the threat of an impending Israeli attack to pressure Iran into offering diplomatic concessions—a development that underscores the high-stakes psychological and strategic maneuvering currently defining Middle East geopolitics.
The ambassador’s assessment, circulated through Iranian media and echoing within policy circles, comes against the backdrop of Israel’s unwavering resolve following the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre—the most lethal antisemitic attack since the Holocaust. Following that atrocity, which saw hundreds of innocent Israelis murdered or abducted by Hamas terrorists in an act of unprovoked aggression, Israel launched the Iron Swords campaign to dismantle Iranian-backed proxies operating on its borders. The Islamic Republic’s involvement through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is central to the region’s volatility, as Tehran has armed and directed groups in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to attack Israeli and Western interests.
According to the former envoy, the American strategy hinges on amplifying the sense of imminent Israeli military action against Iran—either targeting nuclear infrastructure or retaliating for ongoing proxy attacks. By keeping Israeli forces on high alert and publicizing military exercises simulating long-range operations, the U.S. and Israel have created a climate of uncertainty. The ambassador claims this is meant to pressure Iran’s leadership into diplomatic compromise, rather than face a catastrophic military confrontation that could destabilize the regime and endanger its strategic ambitions.
The view from Tehran, as described by the former diplomat, is that even Iran’s intellectual class is susceptible to this psychological campaign. The suggestion is that Iran’s foreign policy establishment risks either caving prematurely to Western demands or misreading the West’s willingness to act militarily—both with severe long-term implications for the regime’s survival and its regional footprint.
Israeli military doctrine under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz is clear: deterrence is paramount, but existential threats will be answered with force if necessary. IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir has made containment of IRGC-directed activities in the region a top priority, vowing to prevent Iranian entrenchment in Syria and escalation from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, while targeting Hamas’s infrastructure in Gaza. The shadow of the October 7th massacre continues to unify Israeli society behind the government’s self-defense operations and the urgent demand for the return of hostages taken by Hamas—a critical issue that starkly distinguishes the innocence of abducted civilians from convicted terrorists released in exchange deals.
In Washington, President Donald Trump’s administration maintains an ‘ironclad’ commitment to Israel’s security while conducting backchannel diplomacy aimed at preventing war from engulfing the broader region. U.S. military assets have been deployed to deter direct Iranian retaliation, while envoys pursue regional coordination with states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. The stakes are recognized on all sides: unchecked escalation could unleash an uncontrollable conflict spanning multiple countries and drawing in both state and non-state actors.
Tehran’s response has been calibrated. While Iranian officials make bellicose threats regarding retaliation, thus far Iran itself has largely confined direct action to proxy warfare—leveraging the IRGC, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Syria and Iraq to attack Israeli and Western targets. Iran’s nuclear program continues to advance, but it remains attuned to signals that miscalculation could trigger a devastating Israeli or U.S. response. Reports from Western intelligence agencies suggest that Iranian leaders are weighing the credibility of Israeli threats and adjusting their timetable for nuclear weaponization based on perceived risk.
This strategic environment is shaped by competing forms of deterrence and psychological operations. Israeli and American officials deliberately publicize preparedness and resolve to keep adversaries guessing about their true red lines. For Iran, as the former ambassador warned, succumbing to the pressure without clear-eyed strategic calculation could mean abandoning key defensive and offensive gains made over decades.
The regional context is further complicated by shifting alliances. The Abraham Accords brought Israel into overt security cooperation with the UAE and Bahrain, with Saudi-Israeli contacts quietly intensifying in response to mutual concerns over Iranian aggression. Egypt and Jordan, directly exposed to the fallout of Gaza conflict and Syria’s instability, have also enhanced intelligence sharing with Israel and the West.
Internationally, Russia and China seek advantage from the standoff by supporting Iran rhetorically and exploiting Western divisions, but offer Tehran no real security guarantees. The European Union persists in efforts to revive the nuclear deal, despite skepticism from Jerusalem and Washington.
What emerges is a Middle East suspended between the risk of a broad war and a tentative diplomatic impasse, with the fate of the region hinging on the credibility of military threats, the integrity of alliances, and the resolve of state leadership facing an unprecedented convergence of strategic, political, and moral challenges.
