U.S. Role in Israel-Iran Conflict: Uncertainty and Global Impact

Today, we’re diving into a critical discussion that has the potential to shape the future of the Middle East and beyond. The topic is the looming conflict between Israel and Iran, and the complex role the United States might play in either escalating or resolving this tension. Now, while this is an imaginary conversation, the issues we’re talking about—military strategies, diplomatic challenges, and the search for peace—are very real and weigh heavily on the minds of leaders, experts, and citizens around the world.

In this conversation, we’re going to explore the uncertainties surrounding U.S. involvement, the growing threat posed by Hezbollah, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the potential for global powers to be drawn into a conflict with far-reaching consequences. But, above all, we’re going to focus on one thing: hope. Is there a path to peace in this complex geopolitical landscape? Can diplomacy, cooperation, and a shared commitment to stability prevail over the forces driving this conflict forward?

As we imagine this dialogue, I invite you to reflect on the possibilities. What can be done to prevent this war? How can the U.S., Israel, Iran, and other global players find a way to step back from the brink? And most importantly, what can we, as a global community, do to keep the hope for peace alive? Let’s get started with some of the most respected voices, tackling one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Inevitability of a Major War

Nick Sasaki: Welcome, everyone. Today, we’re discussing the looming conflict in the Middle East and why it seems inevitable. Let’s start with the big question: Why is this war, involving Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran, considered unavoidable? President Trump, given your role in brokering peace agreements in the region, what are your thoughts?

Donald Trump: Well, Nick, the situation is complicated, but the fact is, Iran has always been a major player in destabilizing the Middle East. During my administration, we put a lot of pressure on Tehran with sanctions and by pulling out of that disastrous nuclear deal. But Iran’s goal hasn’t changed—they want to isolate Israel and ultimately destroy it. You look at Hezbollah, and they’re just a tool for Iran to achieve that. They’re well-armed, well-trained, and constantly provoking Israel. Israel can’t just sit back and allow this threat to grow any bigger, so yes, conflict is pretty much inevitable.

Nick Sasaki: You mention Hezbollah’s role as a proxy for Iran, constantly stoking tensions on Israel’s northern border. Dr. Kissinger, from a historical and diplomatic standpoint, why has this conflict remained unresolved, and what makes it boil over now?

Henry Kissinger: The Middle East, as you know, has been a region where unresolved historical, religious, and political tensions have persisted for centuries. The Israeli-Arab conflict itself is rooted in the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and these conflicts evolve as power shifts occur in the region. What we’re witnessing now is Iran’s strategic long-term play—positioning itself as a dominant power in the region by surrounding Israel with hostile forces. Hezbollah is a significant part of this strategy. Historically, when regional powers, in this case Israel and Iran, become entrenched in ideologically opposed positions with proxies acting as their extensions, war becomes almost a natural consequence of failed diplomacy.

Nick Sasaki: So, it’s a combination of deep-seated historical issues and regional power plays. With Hezbollah’s continuous missile attacks, Israel is under growing pressure to respond. Mr. President, what do you think could have prevented this buildup to war? Was there a missed opportunity?

Donald Trump: Absolutely. I’ll tell you this: if my policies had been continued, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now. We were making real progress with the Abraham Accords, bringing Arab nations closer to Israel. Iran was being isolated, and we had them cornered with sanctions. But when you ease up on them, like we’ve seen recently, they feel emboldened. Iran saw a chance to push back, using Hezbollah as their front line against Israel. The missed opportunity was allowing Tehran to regain its influence instead of keeping the pressure on.

Nick Sasaki: Dr. Kissinger, what about diplomacy? Can we still pull back from the brink?

Henry Kissinger: Diplomacy has always been the preferred route, but it requires both sides to feel that war is not in their best interest. Unfortunately, for Iran, conflict may now seem more beneficial than negotiation. They perceive the current geopolitical landscape, especially with hesitancy from the United States and Europe, as an opportunity to push their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, is facing an existential threat. It will defend itself, and when the stakes are so high for both sides, diplomatic solutions become exceedingly difficult.

Nick Sasaki: It seems we are dealing with actors who feel they have no other choice but to engage in conflict. But where does this leave global powers? How could this conflict draw in the U.S., Russia, or even China?

Donald Trump: If it escalates, and it will if Iran pushes too hard, then the U.S. is going to have to get involved. We have strong ties with Israel, and we can’t let them face this alone. Russia’s already too deep in the Middle East with their interests in Syria and Iran. And don’t forget China—they’ll make moves, maybe not militarily, but economically, and that could shift the whole balance. When these big powers start positioning themselves, you’ve got a much bigger situation than just Israel and Hezbollah.

Henry Kissinger: Precisely. Once great powers become involved, the conflict no longer remains regional. Russia, with its alliances in Syria and Iran, and China, pursuing its economic interests, will see this as an opportunity to expand their influence. The question is whether they prefer a prolonged conflict, which weakens all involved, or a swift resolution. History has shown that once the dominoes begin to fall, the course of war is unpredictable.

Nick Sasaki: So, in your view, both of you see the larger global stage as a crucial factor, which makes this situation even more volatile. We are essentially dealing with a chain reaction waiting to happen.

Donald Trump: Exactly. It’s a dangerous game, and unless we step up with strong leadership, the whole region could explode.

Henry Kissinger: Indeed, the world must tread carefully. The inevitability of this war doesn’t solely rest on Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran—it’s the entire global system that will feel the repercussions.

Nick Sasaki: Thank you both for these enlightening perspectives. It’s clear that the inevitability of this conflict goes beyond just military provocations; it’s deeply embedded in geopolitics and global power shifts. In our next topic, we’ll discuss Hezbollah’s growing threat to Israel’s security.

Hezbollah's Threat to Israel

Nick Sasaki: Let’s dive into the next crucial topic: Hezbollah’s growing threat to Israel. With 150,000 missiles at their disposal and a constant barrage of rocket fire, Hezbollah has become a significant player in this conflict. Ehud Barak, as a former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister, you’ve had firsthand experience with Hezbollah’s threat. How does Hezbollah's current position impact Israel’s security, and what might be Israel’s options for dealing with this threat?

Ehud Barak: Hezbollah is no longer just a terrorist organization—it’s a military force with substantial capabilities, backed by Iran. Their missile arsenal is vast, far more dangerous than what Hamas has. Some of these missiles are highly accurate, capable of reaching deep into Israel and hitting densely populated areas. This creates an unacceptable security risk for Israel. We’ve already seen them launch missiles and drones into northern Israel, which has led to the evacuation of 80,000 residents. This is not a sustainable situation for any sovereign nation.

Israel has always faced threats from its neighbors, but Hezbollah poses a different level of challenge. The scale and sophistication of their arsenal mean that a conflict with them would be on a completely different level than what we’ve seen with Hamas in Gaza. Our options? They are limited but clear: we either preemptively strike Hezbollah’s missile capabilities, or we prepare for a prolonged and devastating war. Unfortunately, both options come with serious consequences.

Nick Sasaki: General Petraeus, you’ve dealt extensively with counterinsurgency and regional military strategies. What makes Hezbollah’s military capabilities so concerning from a strategic perspective?

General David Petraeus: Hezbollah is a formidable force because they blend conventional military tactics with asymmetrical warfare, which makes them difficult to defeat. Their use of advanced missiles and guerrilla tactics, combined with their deep entrenchment in southern Lebanon, creates a layered defense that’s hard to penetrate. We’re not talking about a small militant group—they have thousands of well-trained fighters, sophisticated weaponry, and access to Iranian resources.

What makes them particularly dangerous is their ability to launch a sustained missile campaign against Israel. Unlike Hamas, Hezbollah’s arsenal is large enough to potentially overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. This could result in missiles penetrating key urban areas, causing significant civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

From a strategic standpoint, Hezbollah has effectively become Iran’s front line against Israel. It’s a proxy war scenario, where Hezbollah serves as a buffer that can engage Israel without Iran directly entering the conflict, at least initially. But as Barak mentioned, Israel can’t tolerate this situation indefinitely. Preemptive strikes might be necessary, but they could trigger an all-out war in the region.

Nick Sasaki: It’s clear that Hezbollah’s threat is multifaceted—both in its military strength and its role as Iran’s proxy. Ehud, what are the red lines for Israel in this situation? When does Israel feel it must act, and how does it balance that with the risks of escalating a conflict with Hezbollah?

Ehud Barak: Israel’s red lines are clear. We cannot allow Hezbollah to launch a sustained missile campaign into our territory without a decisive response. The security of our citizens comes first. The evacuation of tens of thousands of people from the north is already a strain on our resources and morale. If Hezbollah’s missile attacks continue, or if they escalate further, Israel will have no choice but to strike back. We can’t afford to let Hezbollah hold parts of our population hostage with the threat of missile strikes.

However, we also recognize the risks. Striking Hezbollah would mean opening a full front, potentially drawing in Iran directly and possibly Syria. We could be facing rocket fire not just from the north, but from multiple directions. This is why Israel has hesitated to act so far—there are no easy choices. But the situation is unsustainable, and we may be reaching the point where military action becomes inevitable.

Nick Sasaki: General Petraeus, what would a potential Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah look like? Could Israel neutralize Hezbollah without it spiraling into a broader regional conflict?

General David Petraeus: An Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah would need to be swift, precise, and overwhelming in order to neutralize their missile capabilities early on. Israel has the technological and military edge, but the challenge lies in the fact that Hezbollah is deeply embedded within civilian areas in southern Lebanon. That makes it difficult to conduct airstrikes or ground operations without causing significant civilian casualties, which would inflame tensions in the region and lead to international condemnation.

If Israel were to strike, it would likely start with targeted airstrikes aimed at Hezbollah’s missile storage sites and launch platforms, followed by ground operations to secure key areas. However, Hezbollah’s guerrilla tactics and use of tunnels would make this a protracted and costly conflict. The risk, of course, is that such a campaign could draw in Iran, which might retaliate by launching its own missiles into Israel. Syria could also get involved, further complicating the situation.

In short, while Israel could neutralize Hezbollah’s immediate threat, the broader consequences of such a campaign are difficult to predict. The region is a tinderbox, and a military conflict of this scale would almost certainly lead to wider instability.

Nick Sasaki: It seems that while Israel may have the capability to deal with Hezbollah, the risks of escalation are profound. Given Hezbollah’s deep ties to Iran, the potential for a broader conflict remains high. Thank you, both, for your insights. In our next topic, we’ll delve deeper into Iran’s strategy and its nuclear ambitions, and what role it plays in this looming conflict.

Iran's Broader Strategy and Nuclear Threat

Nick Sasaki: Now let’s turn our attention to Iran, a key player in this conflict. Iran’s broader strategy has always included exerting influence over the region through proxies like Hezbollah, and many fear that Iran is using the situation to further its nuclear ambitions. Reuel Marc Gerecht, as a Middle East expert with a focus on Iran, can you give us a sense of Iran’s overall strategy here, especially its nuclear ambitions and how they tie into this conflict?

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Iran’s strategy in the Middle East has been remarkably consistent. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, their goal has been to project power and influence through asymmetric means, primarily using proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups allow Iran to challenge Israel, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. interests in the region without directly engaging in conventional warfare.

The nuclear program is central to Iran’s broader ambitions. It provides Tehran with both a deterrent against military action and a tool for leverage in negotiations. The leadership in Tehran understands that possessing nuclear weapons, or even just getting close to having them, changes the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, and rightfully so.

Right now, Iran’s strategy is to keep pushing Israel through Hezbollah while advancing its nuclear program under the radar. They are testing Israel’s limits, waiting to see how far they can push without provoking a full-scale war. The nuclear question is the elephant in the room, because if Iran continues its program unchecked, it drastically alters the strategic calculus for Israel and the entire region.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a sobering thought. Vali Nasr, you’ve studied Iran’s geopolitical motives for years. How do you see Iran’s nuclear ambitions fitting into their broader regional strategy, and how does it impact the current situation with Hezbollah and Israel?

Vali Nasr: Iran’s nuclear ambitions are deeply intertwined with their desire for regional hegemony. Tehran understands that possessing nuclear capabilities would grant it a level of security and influence that no other Middle Eastern nation can match. Iran's leadership believes that nuclear weapons will ensure regime survival, deter military intervention, and enhance its influence across the region.

In the context of Hezbollah and Israel, Iran views Hezbollah as an essential tool to keep Israel occupied while it advances its broader goals. Hezbollah's role as a proxy serves multiple purposes: it diverts Israel's military attention, it acts as a deterrent, and it signals to Israel and the West that any attack on Iran would provoke a larger regional conflict.

The nuclear issue complicates everything. If Israel perceives that Iran is getting too close to a nuclear bomb, it may feel compelled to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. And make no mistake, Iran will respond. Hezbollah would be the first to strike back, with tens of thousands of missiles raining down on Israeli cities. Iran would likely launch its own missiles as well, which could involve U.S. interests in the region, making the conflict spiral out of control.

Nick Sasaki: So, Iran’s strategy of using Hezbollah as a front is closely tied to its nuclear ambitions, creating a two-pronged threat to Israel. Reuel, you mentioned earlier that Iran is testing Israel’s limits. How close is Iran to crossing a line where Israel might feel it has no choice but to take military action, not just against Hezbollah, but directly against Iran?

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Iran is walking a fine line. They know Israel’s red lines when it comes to nuclear development. Israel has already conducted covert operations to delay Iran’s nuclear progress—sabotaging facilities, assassinating nuclear scientists—but these are temporary measures. Iran continues to enrich uranium, and their nuclear facilities have been hardened and dispersed across the country, making a direct military strike much more difficult.

If Iran continues on its current path, Israel might feel compelled to act. However, striking Iran directly would be a massive undertaking, even for Israel’s formidable military. Iran’s nuclear facilities are well protected, and an attack would provoke a fierce response, not just from Iran itself but also from its proxies like Hezbollah. Israel would need U.S. support to make such an operation viable, but the big question is whether Washington is willing to get involved.

Israel is constantly assessing its options, and the moment Iran gets close enough to a nuclear breakout—meaning they have enough fissile material to make a bomb—Israel might decide to launch a preemptive strike. The clock is ticking, but Israel is very cautious about the risks, especially the possibility of triggering a wider regional war.

Nick Sasaki: And if Israel were to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, the regional consequences would be severe. Vali, how would Iran respond, and what role might Hezbollah play in such a scenario?

Vali Nasr: Iran would not sit idly by. They would retaliate, and their first move would likely be to unleash Hezbollah. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets that could overwhelm Israel’s missile defense systems, striking civilian and military targets alike. Iran would also mobilize other proxies across the region, in Iraq, Syria, and possibly even Yemen, to attack U.S. and Israeli interests.

Additionally, Iran has its own missile arsenal that could strike Israeli cities and military bases directly. They might also target U.S. bases in the Gulf. The response would be massive, and the conflict could quickly spiral into a regional war. Syria and Iraq could be drawn in, and the risk of dragging global powers like Russia and the U.S. into the conflict becomes very real. The economic and human toll would be devastating.

What makes this situation particularly dangerous is that wars in the Middle East rarely stay contained. The involvement of proxies, the strategic importance of oil routes, and the global powers with interests in the region mean that any escalation could quickly expand beyond the borders of Israel and Iran.

Nick Sasaki: So, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possibility of military action by Israel could set off a chain reaction, drawing in Hezbollah and other regional actors. Reuel, is there any diplomatic solution left to avoid this confrontation, or are we past the point of negotiation?

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Diplomacy is always an option, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult. Iran has shown little interest in genuine negotiation over its nuclear program. They see the nuclear issue as a bargaining chip, not something they’re willing to give up. The recent nuclear deal that the West hoped would slow Iran’s progress is effectively dead, and Tehran has no incentive to return to the table under the current circumstances.

The only diplomatic solution that might work is one that offers Iran a significant carrot—perhaps economic relief in exchange for halting their nuclear activities. However, that would require strong international consensus and a willingness to enforce the deal, something that has been lacking in recent years. Time is running out, and without a breakthrough soon, military confrontation may become inevitable.

Nick Sasaki: Thank you both for your detailed insights. It seems clear that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a central driver of this growing conflict, and the stakes couldn’t be higher for Israel and the region. In our next discussion, we’ll turn our focus to the uncertainty surrounding U.S. involvement and whether Washington is prepared to back Israel in a potential confrontation.

Uncertainty of U.S. Involvement

Nick Sasaki: Now we turn to a critical aspect of this entire scenario: the uncertainty surrounding U.S. involvement. The United States has been a key ally of Israel for decades, but there’s growing uncertainty over whether Washington would fully back Israel in the event of a large-scale war against Hezbollah and Iran. Ban Ki-moon, with your experience at the United Nations, how do you see the U.S.’s role evolving, and is there a chance that Washington might hesitate to support Israel in a conflict of this magnitude?

Ban Ki-moon: The United States’ relationship with Israel has been robust for many decades, especially in terms of security cooperation. However, the complexities of today’s geopolitical landscape, along with shifting priorities in Washington, do introduce a level of uncertainty. The U.S. is currently grappling with a range of global challenges—rising tensions with China, an ongoing war in Ukraine, and domestic concerns—which means its ability to focus exclusively on the Middle East might be limited.

Furthermore, the U.S. has been wary of getting entangled in another prolonged conflict in the Middle East after Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is strong bipartisan support for Israel in Washington, a full-scale conflict with Hezbollah and Iran would present serious risks for the U.S., especially if Iran retaliates by targeting American interests in the region. The question is not just whether the U.S. is willing to help Israel, but whether it is ready to bear the consequences of getting involved in another regional war.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a fair point, especially given America’s other global priorities. Thomas Friedman, as a seasoned foreign affairs columnist, what’s your take on how the Biden administration—or any future administration—might respond to this potential conflict? Do you think Washington would be willing to fully commit to supporting Israel, or might there be some hesitation?

Thomas Friedman: I think the U.S. is caught in a difficult position. On one hand, Israel is a key ally, and there’s a strong moral and strategic imperative to support it, particularly when its security is threatened by groups like Hezbollah and a nuclear-ambitious Iran. But on the other hand, the U.S. has grown increasingly cautious about military interventions in the Middle East. The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan has left both the public and policymakers skeptical of getting drawn into another war in the region.

What’s more, U.S. relations with other global powers—particularly Russia and China—are already strained. If the U.S. were to get involved militarily on Israel’s behalf, it could potentially open up new fronts in the global power struggle. Russia has interests in Syria and Iran, while China is looking to expand its economic influence across the Middle East. An American military engagement could trigger a broader geopolitical conflict that Washington may not be prepared for.

So, while the U.S. would likely offer strong diplomatic support and perhaps military aid, I think there’s a real hesitation to commit boots on the ground or engage in direct military conflict with Iran, especially if it means dealing with the unpredictable consequences of such an escalation.

Nick Sasaki: Mr. Ban, you mentioned the international community’s potential reaction earlier. How would hesitation or reluctance from the U.S. impact global diplomacy regarding the conflict? Could we see other nations stepping in, either to support or counterbalance U.S. actions?

Ban Ki-moon: If the U.S. hesitates to take a direct role in supporting Israel militarily, it could send mixed signals to both allies and adversaries. On one hand, Israel might feel isolated or uncertain about whether it can count on full U.S. backing, which could affect its strategic decisions. On the other hand, other global powers—particularly Russia and China—may see this as an opportunity to increase their influence in the region.

For example, Russia has been heavily involved in supporting the Assad regime in Syria and maintaining strong ties with Iran. A lack of firm U.S. involvement could embolden Moscow to expand its role in the conflict, whether through arms sales, military advisors, or even direct involvement. China, meanwhile, has been growing its economic ties in the Middle East and may use diplomatic channels to influence the situation, particularly if it sees an opportunity to challenge U.S. dominance in the region.

The international community, including the United Nations, would likely call for a ceasefire and push for diplomatic solutions, but if the conflict escalates, global powers would undoubtedly take sides, complicating efforts to mediate and prevent further violence. The U.S.'s role, or lack thereof, would be a major factor in determining how other nations respond.

Nick Sasaki: That’s an important dynamic to consider—the ripple effects of U.S. hesitation on the global stage. Tom, if the U.S. were to limit its involvement to military aid and diplomatic support, rather than full-scale military engagement, would that be enough for Israel to handle both Hezbollah and Iran on its own?

Thomas Friedman: Israel is a highly capable military power. It has advanced technology, a well-trained military, and the Iron Dome missile defense system. However, handling both Hezbollah and Iran simultaneously would stretch its resources to the limit. Hezbollah’s missile arsenal alone would challenge Israel’s air defense systems, and if Iran were to get involved directly—launching missiles or using its regional proxies—the situation could overwhelm Israel’s ability to defend on multiple fronts.

Military aid from the U.S., such as intelligence sharing, precision-guided munitions, and additional missile defense systems, would certainly help, but without direct military support, Israel would be fighting a difficult war on its own. The real question is not whether Israel could defend itself—it can—but how long it could sustain such a defense without significant external support. If the conflict drags on, Israel would need more than just arms; it would need strategic and logistical backing, which might push Washington toward deeper involvement, despite its initial hesitation.

Nick Sasaki: Mr. Ban, do you think Israel’s actions—whether it strikes Hezbollah or Iran—could force the U.S. to get involved, even if Washington prefers to stay out?

Ban Ki-moon: Absolutely. If Israel were to launch a preemptive strike on Hezbollah or Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. might have no choice but to get involved, even if it had initially hesitated. Iran would likely retaliate not just against Israel, but also against U.S. interests in the region, such as military bases in the Gulf. This could force Washington to act defensively, even if it didn’t initially want to engage in direct military operations.

Additionally, Israel and the U.S. are closely linked in terms of intelligence and military cooperation. If the conflict escalates to a point where Israel’s security is severely threatened, or if U.S. interests are attacked, Washington would be drawn into the conflict. This is why the situation is so delicate—any action by Israel could have far-reaching consequences that pull the U.S. deeper into a conflict it would prefer to avoid.

Nick Sasaki: So, despite the U.S.'s hesitance to engage, the nature of the conflict might leave Washington with no choice but to get involved if the situation spirals out of control. Thank you both for your perspectives. Next, we’ll move to our final topic: Israel’s dilemma and the potential risk of escalation in this already volatile situation.

Israel’s Dilemma and the Risk of Escalation

Nick Sasaki: We’ve discussed Hezbollah, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the uncertainty of U.S. involvement, but now we turn to Israel’s most pressing challenge: how to navigate this escalating situation. Israel faces an existential dilemma. If it doesn’t act decisively, it risks letting Hezbollah grow stronger and Iran advance its nuclear capabilities. But taking military action could trigger a full-scale regional war. Rev. Moon, you’ve often spoken about peace and unification. What do you think Israel’s role should be in this complex situation, where the risk of escalation looms so large?

Rev. Moon: Israel is in a position where it must defend its people, but it must also consider the long-term consequences of its actions. In my experience, the path to peace always involves understanding and dialogue, even when it seems impossible. Israel must find a way to protect itself without abandoning the hope for peace. It’s not just about military might—it’s about showing that even in the most difficult situations, there’s a way forward that doesn’t result in endless cycles of violence. Diplomacy should always be the first option, and efforts should be made to engage with all parties, even those who seem like enemies.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a powerful message, Rev. Moon. But Israel is facing daily missile attacks and security threats from Hezbollah, and its citizens are under constant pressure. Pope Francis, you’ve been a strong advocate for peace and reconciliation. What would you advise Israel in terms of balancing its need for self-defense with the pursuit of peace?

Pope Francis: Israel, like any nation, has the right to defend its people, but we must never lose sight of the human cost of conflict. War brings suffering, displacement, and loss, not just for one side, but for all involved. My advice to Israel—and to all nations in this region—is to pursue every possible avenue for peace before turning to violence. The greatest victory is not in defeating an enemy but in transforming a relationship built on conflict into one of understanding and coexistence. Israel is in a difficult position, but it must seek peace with a heart of compassion, even in the face of hostility.

Nick Sasaki: Thank you, Pope Francis. General Petraeus, from a military perspective, Israel is dealing with Hezbollah’s sophisticated missile arsenal and the potential for an Iranian response. What would a military escalation look like, and what risks does Israel face if it chooses to act preemptively?

General David Petraeus: If Israel were to act preemptively, the first objective would likely be to neutralize Hezbollah’s missile capabilities. But this is easier said than done. Hezbollah is deeply embedded within civilian areas in southern Lebanon, which makes any military operation extremely complicated and costly, both in terms of lives and resources. Israel has the technological advantage, but it’s not just about airstrikes. Ground operations would likely be required to secure key areas, and that could lead to a prolonged conflict.

Moreover, any strike against Hezbollah could trigger an immediate retaliation from Iran, possibly involving missile strikes on Israeli cities or attacks on U.S. bases in the region. Israel would be facing a multi-front war with Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in Gaza, and potentially Iranian forces as well. The risk is that a limited military operation could escalate into a full-scale regional war, with devastating consequences for all sides.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a grim outlook. Tom, as you’ve covered these kinds of conflicts before, what’s your view on how Israel can navigate this dilemma without triggering such a massive escalation?

Thomas Friedman: Israel is in a tight spot, no doubt about it. They can’t just sit back and allow Hezbollah to continue growing stronger, and they certainly can’t ignore the threat of Iran’s nuclear program. But at the same time, launching a full-scale military campaign would be incredibly risky. It could spiral out of control, as General Petraeus mentioned, dragging the entire region into a war that nobody really wants.

The key for Israel is to maintain its deterrence while also working diplomatically behind the scenes. Israel has been effective in covert operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities and targeting key Hezbollah figures. These kinds of operations can slow down the threat without triggering an all-out war. At the same time, Israel should be engaging its allies—not just the U.S., but also European nations and moderate Arab states—to create pressure on Iran and Hezbollah to come to the negotiating table. Israel has to walk a very fine line here, balancing military strength with diplomatic finesse.

Nick Sasaki: So, it’s a delicate balance between military action and diplomacy, with enormous risks on both sides. Rev. Moon, you’ve spoken about the importance of long-term vision. What do you think Israel’s leaders should focus on in the coming years, beyond just the immediate threats?

Rev. Moon: Israel’s leaders must focus on creating a future where its people can live in peace and security, not just for the next few years, but for generations to come. That means building bridges where there are currently walls. The conflict in the Middle East is not just political or military—it’s deeply spiritual and historical. Healing these wounds requires patience, wisdom, and the willingness to see beyond current enemies to potential allies. Israel must lead by example, showing that peace is possible even in the most difficult of circumstances.

Nick Sasaki: Thank you, Rev. Moon. It’s clear that while Israel faces immediate and grave threats, the broader picture of peace must always be kept in sight. This concludes our discussion today on Israel’s dilemma and the risks of escalation. We’ve covered a lot of ground, from Hezbollah’s military threat to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the role of global powers like the U.S. in this conflict. While the road ahead is uncertain, one thing is clear: the choices made in the coming months will have lasting effects on the region and the world.

Short Bios: