(TNND) — The conflict between Israel and Iran offers both opportunities and risks for the United States, which has long sought an end to Iran's nuclear program.

The new and ongoing Israeli strikes against Iran should seriously hamper Iran's nuclear program.

And it’s possible Israel’s attacks lead to an Iranian regime change, which would create risks of its own with the unknowns of who would seize power.

President Donald Trump was pushing for a diplomatic off-ramp, which the Iranians didn’t appear particularly interested in taking before Israel’s airstrikes began late last week.

Raphael Cohen, an expert in foreign policy, military strategy and the Middle East at RAND, said Israeli military pressure could drive Iran to make a deal, or even a better deal than it would’ve made otherwise.

“Now, all that said, anytime you have two medium-weight powers, Israel and Iran, going at it in a vital part of the world, that's a risky proposition,” Cohen said. “That's a risky proposition for the people in both of those countries, respectively. It's a risky proposition for all the individual countries caught in between. ... And to a lesser extent, it’s a risky proposition for the United States.”

The risks to tens of thousands of American troops in the region might increase.

American consumers might feel shocks to the world’s oil supply.

Cohen said the Iranian regime has been actively killing Americans for the last four decades.

“So, they were behind the Beirut bombing in the ‘80s. They were behind Khobar Towers bombing in the ‘90s. They killed endless hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.

There are good reasons the Americans and Israelis don’t want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon.

It’s been an issue that American presidents have dealt with for decades with sanctions and diplomatic initiatives.

President Barack Obama took a crack at it a decade ago with an Iran nuclear arms control agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he launched the new wave of strikes against Iran to safeguard his country and the rest of the world from a nuclear Iran.

“I'll tell you what would have come if we hadn't acted,” Netanyahu said in a video posted to social media. “We had information that this unscrupulous regime was planning to give the nuclear weapons that they would develop to their terrorist proxies. That's nuclear terrorism on steroids. That would threaten the entire world.”

Terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis operate with Iran’s backing. They are considered proxy groups for Iran.

But Cohen said it was noteworthy that Lebanon-based Hezbollah, battered from its own fights with Israel, is staying on the sidelines while Israel attacks its ally.

Iran doesn’t have friends in the Middle East, according to Gordon Gray, a former ambassador who now teaches at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

Hezbollah has been decapitated, Gray said.

Hamas is on its heels after fighting Israel in Gaza.

And the Gulf Arab states, with which the U.S. has close relationships, view Iran very warily, Gray said.

Gray, who was ambassador to Tunisia from 2009 until 2012 and had 35 years of government service, said Israel has probably already dealt a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear program.

But eliminating it will be tougher.

And that might mean direct American military involvement.

The U.S. supplies Israel with a lot of weapons and has helped Israel defend itself from incoming Iranian missiles during the recent conflict.

But Israel doesn’t have the airpower to destroy Iran’s fortified nuclear site, Fordo, which is deeply buried under a mountain.

The U.S. has the airpower to bomb and bust that underground bunker, both Gray and Cohen said.

But it’s not clear if that’s on the table for Trump. Both Gray and Cohen said Trump would be reluctant to get Americans involved in another Middle East conflict.

Cohen said he couldn’t envision American troops on the ground in Iran even if the U.S. attacked Iranian nuclear sites from the air.

But Iran might retaliate against American bases in the region.

Perhaps the Israelis could attempt a commando operation that damages Iran’s fortified nuclear capacity without requiring the U.S. to drop massive bombs, Gray said.

“The Israelis have shown a very impressive intelligence collection ... and the capability to conduct impressive strategic special operations,” he said.

Trump, who left the Group of Seven summit in Canada a day early with tensions rising in the Middle East, told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was looking for something “better than a ceasefire” between Israel and Iran.

Trump warned people in Iran’s capital of Tehran to evacuate.

And he’s repeatedly called on Iran’s regime to give up its nuclear ambitions.

“We don't have to go too deep into it,” Trump said. “They just can't have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump said he might send Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff to negotiate with the Iranian government for “a real end, not a ceasefire. An end.”

Trump on Monday called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and said U.S. and Israeli forces know where Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is hiding if they wanted to target him.

Cohen said a good, negotiated deal for the U.S. and Israel would be the “optimistic scenario” coming from the current conflict.

Iran’s supreme leader is seeing his fortunes change for the worse, Cohen said. And that could push him to negotiate.

Cohen said the pessimistic scenario would be that the Ayatollah feels that his regime or his domestic legitimacy is threatened and doubles down on his retaliation against the Israeli strikes.

A third scenario is that the Ayatollah’s regime crumbles.

“And then, who knows what emerges from the chaos?” Cohen said.

Gray said the Ayatollah’s regime is unpopular with the Iranian people.

And Cohen said the Iranian public isn’t as hostile to American interests as the Iranian regime.

But both men said the U.S. has seen plenty of regime changes in the Middle East go badly.

Cohen said the Israelis believe they will achieve most of their military objectives within the first couple of weeks.

What happens next remains unclear.

“The choice to end the conflict is not a military decision,” Cohen said. “It's a political one.”