United States

Keeping NATO partner countries on the sidelines of the summit “would send a signal that perhaps the focus is much more on core NATO issues,” said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson and a senior fellow at London’s Royal United Services Institute.

Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, said the US had built an impressive amount of firepower, already more than most countries could assemble. He said: “Israel could nearly double what is available in the air if it joined, and it’s worth recognising that the current force will be more precise than its predecessors, with greater air superiority.” He added that, even without Israel, once the second carrier arrived, the force would be capable of executing hundreds of air sorties per day for weeks, and delivering a high rate of Tomahawk missile strikes. Mr Savill added: “It is unknown what impact this will have. It could coerce a change of policy by the regime, and strike across its missile programs. But we don’t know if it can force the regime out of power because we have no good external understanding of how brittle it is.”

Dr Burcu Ozcelik, Middle East security expert at the Rusi think tank, suggested that the subsequent tempo of strikes, given the US assets in the region, would amount to 80 to 120 a day. “The issue is how long US combat operations can be sustained without creating fatigue in the forward forces,” she added....Dr Ozcelik added that Iran would want to “impose a cost” on Israel posing a “huge risk” against urban centres. “But if they strike one of their Gulf neighbours that will really damage relations at a time when Iran is facing isolation and needs to maintain ties with the Gulf.”