The joint strike by United States and Israel on Iranian territory marks a significant escalation, both militarily and strategically. Unlike previous shadow confrontations, this coordinated action signals a higher level of alignment between the US and Israel— and raises the stakes for the entire region.

For Israel, the strikes serve multiple purposes. First, they aim to achieve a "broken window" effect: to demonstrate that Iran's territory is penetrable, just as Syria once proved vulnerable to repeated Israeli air operations. Shattering the perception of Iranian homeland invulnerability carries both military and psychological weight. Second, sustained pressure could aggravate Iran's already fragile economy, thereby undermining the regime's domestic foundations.

For the United States, participation reflects a shift from indirect pressure to more overt involvement. Rather than relying solely on deterrence and sanctions, Washington appears to have concluded that calibrated force may strengthen its bargaining position. In earlier phases, President Donald Trump pursued what could be described as "military coercion" — escalating pressure just enough to compel Tehran to concede, while avoiding a full-scale war. When limited pressure failed to deliver the desired results, US military deployments in the region gradually increased, seeking to impose psychological and strategic pressure on Iran.

However, once the United States becomes directly involved in joint operations, the space for controlled escalation narrows considerably. The next phase of confrontation, if it unfolds, is unlikely to be a limited "strike-and-withdraw" scenario. The danger lies not in symbolic blows, but in rapid and potentially uncontrollable escalation — possibly exceeding the scale of last June's exchange.

In the event of retaliation, Iran's first wave of response would almost certainly focus on Israeli territory, while also calculating how to impose costs on US interests in the region. Such a dynamic could quickly evolve into a broader regional confrontation, drawing in additional actors and expanding beyond the initial scope of the strike.

The core reality is this: while Washington and Tehran may both prefer managed confrontation over all-out war, joint US-Israel military action significantly increases volatility. Once escalation crosses a certain threshold, the logic of deterrence can give way to the logic of survival.

If conflict erupts on a larger scale, it is unlikely to remain contained — and its trajectory would be far more severe and unpredictable than many policymakers anticipate.

The author is a professor of Middle East affairs at Renmin University of China. This is an excerpt of the interview with China Daily reporter Li Huixian.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.