Hello from London,

Weakness is dangerous, especially in international affairs. Binyamin Netanyahu has judged that attacking Iran’s nuclear sites—and perhaps even toppling its government—is a gamble worth taking. Playing with extraordinarily high stakes, he is willing to risk a full-scale war in the Middle East in order to make Israel more secure. His calculation? I believe he saw this as simply too good a chance to pass up. Iran, a bitter enemy, seemed temptingly weak. Previous Israeli strikes had already removed much of its air defences. Israeli spies and assassins had been wreaking havoc inside Iran. Crucially, two Iranian allies in the region— Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria—are no longer a factor. All that sharply reduced, though evidently has not eliminated, Iran’s capacity to strike back hard. Iran’s previous efforts to attack Israel were limited. Unless you count Russia, which itself is bogged down by war, Iran also looks pretty friendless in the wider world.

Mr Netanyahu has also judged, it seems to me, that America’s president will not restrain him. The Israeli has a stronger personality than Donald Trump, by which I mean he is more focused, ruthless and determined on his strategy. Mr Trump, who tends to vacillate, has been easily swept along Israel’s preferred path. All the American’s earlier statements that he wanted to pursue diplomacy, negotiating over Iran’s nuclear programme, have been blown away by his junior ally. As we have written, Mr Trump is now being urged to go “all in” on crushing Iran.

The risk, of course, is that the war will escalate fast —and Iran may yet show it has the means to cause serious damage in its retaliation. Israel has struck nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and beyond. It has also targeted civilians, including nuclear scientists. That opens up a justification, of sorts, for Iran to target civilians too. Israel will follow up with more attacks as it attempts to seriously batter Iran’s nuclear programme. America is already involved in helping to defend Israel against incoming missiles. It is easy to imagine, as America rushes more naval ships and other military assets to the region, that the superpower will become more directly involved. Iran—deliberately or otherwise—may strike American forces. Meanwhile, Israel yearns for America itself to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, rather than leave the job partially done. Only American bombs could cause destruction deep underground that might decisively set back the nuclear programme.

Mr Trump’s repeated promises to keep America out of foreign entanglements thus risk becoming toast. Were Iran’s regime to fall a vacuum would open in a dangerous region. It would be hard for America to keep itself out of the fray as rival powers rushed to take advantage. You don’t need much imagination to consider what might follow. Just over two decades ago, when Iraq’s noxious leader, Saddam Hussein, was toppled, the world celebrated. Then came immense, bloody upheaval. The next big act in the Middle East’s modern history appears to be opening. 

Last week I asked for your views on the spat between Mr Trump and Elon Musk. Our inbox was crammed with your thoughtful responses. To summarise the majority view: you felt that the falling-out had been inevitable; the only question had been when it would come. It is hard to dismiss it as inconsequential, given the power of the two men. Indeed, some of you felt that the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was an effort by Mr Trump to distract attention from the fuss. My further recommendation: read Lexington’s take on the affair. 

For next week, inevitably, I’d like your observations on what happens next between Israel and Iran. Will America be drawn into another war in the Middle East? Will the conflict grow? Email me at economisttoday@economist.com.