Who benefits from Trump’s strikes on Iran?

The joint military strikes ordered by US President Donald Trump against Iran in late February 2026 have sharply changed the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

While US officials frame the operation as a defensive measure, analysts, politicians and commentators are debating who benefits most from the escalation, reports Al Jazeera.

The Trump administration says the strikes were necessary to forestall threats from Tehran. Trump reiterated longstanding concerns about Iranian missiles, stating that "They've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America." He also described the action as a mission to prevent Iran from "threatening America and our core national security interests."

But Trump's decision appears to diverge markedly from his previous foreign policy rhetoric. On past interventions he said: "In the end, the so‑called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves." Analysts say the shift toward an extensive military campaign — described by the administration as aimed at bringing "freedom" to Iran — represents a departure from Trump's earlier "America First" emphasis on avoiding prolonged foreign entanglements.

Israeli strategic gains

The most direct beneficiary, according to critics, may be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has long sought US military pressure on Iran and has repeatedly argued that Tehran's missile programme poses an existential threat to Israel. "Iran can blackmail any American city. People don't believe it. Iran is developing intercontinental missiles with a range of 8,000km [5,000 miles], add another 3,000 [1,800 miles], and they can get to the East Coast of the US," he told supporters.

Observers note that Netanyahu's narrative has been incorporated into US public messaging. Trump's warnings about missile threats echoed Netanyahu's claims during public addresses, linking Iranian capabilities to US homeland vulnerability.

Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said the conflict reflects longstanding Israeli influence on US military posture. "This is, once again, a war of choice launched by the US with [a] push from Israel. This is another Israeli war that the US is launching. Israel has pushed the US to attack Iran for two decades, and they finally got it," she said, adding: "It is ironic, because this is a president who called himself the 'president of peace'."

Domestic US political effects

Within the United States, the strikes may also influence domestic political dynamics. Trump's broader base includes voters critical of foreign wars, yet the president has framed the action as necessary and forward‑looking. "That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission," he told supporters.

Critics from both ends of the political spectrum argue that the war is disconnected from direct US security interests. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said: "Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars." Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioned the relevance of Iran as a threat to ordinary Americans, saying: "What problem on the border with Lebanon? I'm an American. I'm not having any problems on the border with Lebanon right now. I live in Maine."

These domestic critiques highlight the potential political costs for Trump as he balances divergent public opinion and party interests.

Diplomacy vs. military escalation

Experts also emphasize that the strikes undermined ongoing diplomatic efforts with Iran. Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said the timing appeared calculated to prevent a negotiated solution, arguing that Netanyahu "feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June." Abdi added that "Trump's embrace of regime change rhetoric is a further victory for Netanyahu, and loss for the American people, as it suggests the US may be committed to a long and unpredictable military boondoggle."

Iranian officials have condemned the US actions. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "Diplomacy was betrayed by the Americans."

Regional actors and strategic alignments

In addition to Israel, regional states aligned against Tehran may see strategic benefit from weakening Iran's military capabilities. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf partners have previously expressed concern about Iranian influence across the region, and the US strike has shifted the strategic balance.

Critics argue that the most tangible beneficiary of the conflict may be the hardliners in Israel and other US allies who have long advocated for decisive opposition to Tehran, while the costs — economic, diplomatic, and human — are borne by ordinary citizens across the region and abroad.