With the United States and Israel stepping up armed actions against Iran, analysts warn the situation could become one of the most consequential Middle East crises in generations.
Recent reports said Israeli operations reached into a widely used Iranian prayer app to send messages urging members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other security forces to abandon arms. On CBS News, analyst Douglas Murray described the move as a familiar psychological tactic aimed at encouraging defections, and he said it echoed President Trump’s public warning that Iran’s security forces could either stand down or face additional consequences.
Murray argued this campaign differs from earlier, more limited strikes because it appears designed to undermine or remove elements of Iran’s ruling system rather than simply target nuclear facilities or military sites. He traced Iran’s activities since 1979: internal repression, an expansive network of regional proxies, and sustained support for terrorist operations. That reach, Murray noted, has included alleged plots in South America, schemes aimed at dissidents overseas, and plots touching U.S. soil and officials. Because Iran has operated on a global scale, he warned, any serious destabilization of its government would have consequences well beyond the Middle East.
Why now? Murray suggested a mix of timing and perceived vulnerability. He said moves to try to remove or collapse parts of the regime were not being pursued during the shorter conflict last summer, when attention centered on nuclear sites. Officials, he argued, may now view Iran and its proxy networks as more exposed and therefore susceptible to decisive measures. Frustration with Iran’s repeated delays and stalling in talks may also have convinced some Western leaders that a different, more forceful approach is required.
CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett noted that concerns about Iran have been a persistent feature of U.S. foreign policy across administrations since 1979, encompassing proxy wars, terrorism and the nuclear program. Because those threats have outlasted individual presidencies, leaders from both parties have long been frustrated by Tehran’s behavior. Garrett suggested the Trump administration may see an opening now because it assesses Iran and its allies to be weaker than before.
Domestic politics complicate the calculus. A CBS poll conducted before the president’s State of the Union found 72 percent of Americans felt the administration had not clearly explained its position on potential military action against Iran. When asked how the United States should deal with Iran’s leadership, respondents were divided: 18 percent favored removing leaders by force, 22 percent preferred staying out, 22 percent wanted more sanctions, and 38 percent supported negotiating. Seventy-four percent said the president should obtain Congressional approval for military action. On the question of using force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the public was nearly evenly split, 51 to 49 percent.
Those numbers underscore political risks for the administration, particularly with midterm elections approaching and the need to keep a Congressional coalition intact. Garrett observed that although presidents differ in style, concern about Iran resonates across the political spectrum because it has been a long-running security challenge.
Murray said the domestic political impact will depend largely on the outcomes of any operations. He compared public reaction to a recent operation involving Venezuela, where initial opinion among undecided voters was negative but shifted in favor after the action appeared successful. He cautioned, however, that wars and foreign-policy moves rarely decide midterm elections; voters usually focus on economic and day-to-day issues. Still, a clear-cut success against Iran could produce a short-term political boost and lead many politicians to claim credit.
Both analysts emphasized that beyond electoral politics, the strategic stakes are high. If Iran’s regime were truly destabilized or its leadership removed, the balance of power across the region could shift dramatically. Given Tehran’s decades-long international activity, the ripple effects could be felt around the world. In the coming days and weeks, officials and observers will be watching to see whether the current campaign results in a new regional order, a drawn-out confrontation, or broader consequences far from the Middle East.