Like You, I’m Concerned About Israel and Iran. So I Turned to ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Grok for a Clearer Picture.

I’m troubled by the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, and the uncertainty around what could happen next is unsettling. To get a clearer, fact-based understanding, I asked four of my law firm’s most advanced AI systems—ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Grok—to use their “Deep Research” capabilities to analyze the situation and predict what’s likely to come. Their responses were detailed, revealing, and in some cases, surprisingly aligned. Here’s what they told me.

---

ChatGPT 4o Deep Research (paid)

Israel–Iran Conflict 2025: Comprehensive Analysis and Outlook

Executive Summary

The Israel–Iran conflict has escalated into direct, high-intensity warfare following Israel’s June 13, 2025, preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Israel holds the military advantage due to superior technology, intelligence, U.S. support, and air dominance, while Iran continues retaliatory missile and drone attacks amid significant losses. Regional actors and proxies remain on edge, and global powers are scrambling to prevent a broader conflict, though the risk of escalation remains high. Economic and geopolitical ripple effects are already impacting oil markets, global inflation, and security alignments. Based on current trajectories, a short but full-scale war is already underway, and Israel is likely to prevail militarily.

---

Introduction

The long-simmering hostilities between Israel and Iran have erupted into direct conflict as of mid-June 2025. What began as a shadow war of covert strikes and proxy clashes has escalated into open military exchanges, with Israel launching large-scale air attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites and Iran retaliating with ballistic missile salvos. This report provides an in-depth, objective analysis of the current Israel–Iran confrontation as of June 18, 2025, and projects possible developments. Key questions include whether a full-scale war will ensue (or continue), how long such a war might last, who would likely prevail, and what the consequences would be. We examine the political contexts in Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran; the state of military, diplomatic, cyber, and proxy engagements; potential escalation triggers; the role of the United States under its current leadership; and the anticipated military, political, economic, and global fallout. The goal is a neutral, comprehensive assessment of this conflict’s trajectory and its regional and worldwide implications.

Political Context in the U.S., Israel, and Iran

• United States: The U.S. underwent a leadership transition in January 2025. President Donald Trump returned to office after winning the November 2024 election, marking a shift to a Republican administration. President Trump campaigned on an “America First” agenda emphasizing an end to “endless wars,” yet now faces a major Middle East crisis six months into his term. The Republican Party controls the executive branch, and Trump’s foreign policy team (including figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard) has taken a hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump has long been an outspoken critic of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and Iran’s regional activities. His administration’s official position is that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. In fact, in the lead-up to the current conflict, Trump pushed for diplomacy but with maximalist demands (insisting Iran halt all uranium enrichment). This stance contributed to a deadlock in U.S.–Iran talks and set the stage for Israel’s decision to strike. Domestically, the Iran-Israel war is testing Trump’s base. Many traditional Republican hawks and pro-Israel lawmakers cheer Israel’s actions, but a significant segment of the “Make America Great Again” populist right is wary of U.S. entanglement. Influential voices like Tucker Carlson have argued the U.S. “should not support the ‘war-hungry’ government” of Israel and should avoid being dragged into a foreign war. Prominent figures including Senator Rand Paul and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have publicly cautioned Trump to stay out of a war with Iran, reflecting war fatigue among many American voters. Nonetheless, bipartisan support for Israel remains strong in Congress, and President Trump himself has all but endorsed Israel’s strikes on Iran. The U.S. political context, therefore, is a mix of robust official backing for Israel’s “self-defense” and an undercurrent of public reluctance to see America fight another Middle East war. This tension will shape how far Washington goes in supporting Israel militarily.

• Israel: Israel’s government is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party, heading a right-wing coalition that took power in late 2022. Netanyahu’s bloc includes hardline nationalist and religious parties, and it has pursued a hawkish security policy. Netanyahu has built his career on warning of Iran’s nuclear threat, and his cabinet views Iran’s Islamist regime as an existential enemy. Domestically, Netanyahu faced deep divisions over judicial reforms and public protests earlier in 2023–24, but the outbreak of war has largely unified Israel’s political sphere around the goal of neutralizing Iran’s strategic capabilities. Even opposition figures who spar with Netanyahu on domestic issues have backed decisive action against Iran’s nuclear program. The Israeli public, while anxious about incoming missiles, is rallying in support of the IDF’s operations, which are seen as vital for national survival. Netanyahu’s own rhetoric during the conflict has been uncompromising – visiting the site of an Iranian missile strike near Tel Aviv, he vowed that “Iran will pay a heavy price for the murder of civilians, women and children”. This mirrors a broader Israeli consensus that Iran must be deterred “by any means necessary” from obtaining nuclear arms. The Israeli security establishment is on high alert on multiple fronts (Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria). Notably, the IDF is one of the region’s most technologically advanced militaries, and it has spent years preparing contingency plans for striking Iran’s nuclear sites. Political control in Israel thus currently rests with a war cabinet mentality, prioritizing swift military success over diplomatic restraint. However, if the war drags on or casualty figures mount, pressures could emerge – Israel has so far suffered relatively limited losses (dozens killed or injured) compared to Iran, but public tolerance could wane if that balance shifts. For now, though, Israel’s leadership and populace appear resolute and united in prosecuting the conflict.

• Iran: Iran’s political leadership is dominated by hardliners firmly opposed to Israel’s existence. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains the ultimate authority and has framed the conflict as a defensive jihad against Zionist aggression. Iran’s elected government is headed by President Ebrahim Raisi, a conservative cleric aligned with Khamenei’s camp, who came to power in 2021. Raisi’s administration and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have taken a defiant tone, condemning Israel’s strikes as an illegal “declaration of war” and vowing “decisive” retaliation. The regime in Tehran has long faced internal unrest (such as the late-2022 protests), and now war adds new pressures. Initially, the Israeli surprise attack decapitated parts of Iran’s military leadership: Iran’s armed forces Chief of Staff General Mohammad Bagheri was killed, as was IRGC Commander Hossein Salami and other top commanders. In response, Khamenei moved swiftly to appoint new military chiefs – for example, General Abdolrahim Mousavi was promoted to armed forces chief of staff, and Mohammad Pakpour (a veteran IRGC general) took charge of the Revolutionary Guards. These new leaders have publicly pledged to **“finish” the war that Israel started. Politically, the war has so far rallied many Iranians around the flag – even critics of the regime express anger at Israel’s killing of civilians in Tehran. Nationalist sentiment is strong, evoking memories of the Iran–Iraq War as Iranian cities come under attack. Still, the regime faces a delicate balance: it must respond forcefully to maintain credibility, yet avoid total devastation or internal collapse. Khamenei’s government has signaled willingness to de-escalate if Israel stops bombing – Iranian officials said they would “reciprocate” any halt in Israeli attacks and even floated openness to resuming nuclear negotiations in exchange. This suggests Tehran’s priority is regime survival; it seeks to punish Israel and deter further aggression without inviting its own destruction. In summary, Iran’s leadership (the hardline clerical establishment and IRGC) is politically unified in resistance, but the stakes are existential. The war’s outcome could determine the future of Iran’s ruling system – either entrenching it through a rally-round-the-flag effect or destabilizing it if military defeats and economic pain erode public support.

Current State of the Conflict (Mid-June 2025)

Overview: After years of proxy clashes and covert ops, Israel and Iran are now in a direct shooting war. The conflict ignited on Friday, June 13, 2025, when Israel launched a massive preemptive air assault on Iran, targeting over a dozen sites across the country. Israel’s stated aim was to cripple Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons and to eliminate key military threats. In the initial wave, Israeli warplanes struck Iran’s major nuclear facilities (including the enrichment complex at Natanz), military bases, IRGC command centers, and even the residences of top Iranian leaders. The attacks were devastating: the above-ground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz was reportedly destroyed, with the UN’s IAEA chief confirming “contamination” at the site from the strikes. Israeli warheads also killed dozens of Iran’s senior personnel (scientists and officers), effectively decapitating parts of Iran’s defense hierarchy in one night. Iran, for its part, answered with unprecedented direct force. Within hours of the Israeli bombardment, Iran’s military fired waves of ballistic missiles at Israeli cities – an action Iran had never before openly taken against the Israeli mainland. This marked the start of a rapid escalation that now involves daily exchanges of fire by air and missile. The conflict encompasses multiple domains: conventional military strikes, proxy militia activity, diplomatic confrontation, and cyber/information warfare. Below is a breakdown of key aspects as of June 18, 2025:

• Military Exchanges: The fighting has been intense and destructive, though not (yet) all-out total war. Israel has enforced air supremacy over Iran’s skies, mounting hundreds of sorties. As of June 17, Israeli forces had conducted “197 reported or confirmed” airstrikes on Iranian territory. These strikes have systematically targeted Iran’s strategic assets:

  • Nuclear Program: In addition to Natanz, Israel hit the Esfahan nuclear technology center and attempted to strike the Fordow underground facility (though Fordow’s status remains intact per IAEA). The Israeli objective is clearly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by years. Thousands of centrifuges have been damaged or destroyed, and power infrastructure at enrichment sites was knocked out. The strike on Natanz even managed to impact some underground halls – a remarkable feat given Natanz’s fortified depth.

  • Missile Forces: Recognizing Iran’s missile arsenal as the primary immediate threat, Israel has relentlessly struck missile bases, launch sites, and storage depots across Iran. By June 17, the Israeli Air Force had destroyed “about half” of Iran’s known ballistic missile launchers (over 200 launchers) and an estimated 35–45% of Iran’s missile stockpiles. Strikes were confirmed on major missile facilities, such as the Tehrani Moghaddam base near Tehran and the Amand missile base in northwestern Iran, causing significant damage. This degradation of Iran’s launch capacity is evident in the shrinking size of Iranian salvos: whereas Iran launched around 200 missiles in two big waves during an initial attack in October 2024, its barrages in June 2025 have been much smaller (by June 17, some barrages were down to 2–20 missiles).

  • Military Leadership & C2: The Israeli campaign has also targeted command-and-control centers and high-value personnel. As noted, Iran’s armed forces chief, the IRGC commander, and at least eight senior missile program officers were killed in the opening strikes. Israel even struck Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Tehran (perhaps aiming at intelligence elements there), and an IRGC intelligence headquarters, according to Iranian officials. These hits aim to disrupt Iran’s coordination of the war. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz bluntly warned that “the residents of Tehran will pay the price – and soon” for Iranian missile attacks, indicating Israel’s willingness to hit symbols of the regime in the capital. Indeed, Israeli missiles struck an Iranian state TV station in Tehran while it was broadcasting live, knocking it off air and injuring journalists. An Israeli strike also hit a hospital in western Iran (Farabi Hospital in Kermanshah), which Iran called a “war crime” – though Israel claims it targets only legitimate military sites. In effect, Israel’s military operations are a blend of precision strikes on strategic targets and punitive attacks meant to sap Iranian morale and capacity to fight.

• Iran’s Response: Despite heavy blows, Iran’s armed forces remain in the fight. The Iranian military has by now launched multiple ballistic missile and drone attacks against Israel. Over four days, Iran announced it had fired roughly 100 ballistic missiles at Israel, alongside swarms of armed drones. These projectiles have targeted major Israeli population centers and infrastructure:

  • Iranian missiles have struck in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and as far north as Haifa, causing destruction unprecedented in Israel’s modern history. In Tel Aviv’s suburbs (e.g. Bat Yam), residential blocks were reduced to rubble by direct hits, leaving dozens of civilians dead or wounded. In Haifa, a missile slammed into the port’s oil refinery complex, forcing all refining operations to shut down; at least 3 people were killed in that strike. Air raid sirens have become a constant across Israel, and citizens are sheltering in bunkers or interior safe rooms as Iran’s long-range missiles rain down.

  • Not all Iranian missiles penetrate Israel’s defenses. The Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow air defense systems – bolstered by U.S.-provided interceptors – have intercepted many incoming rockets. According to Israeli reports, a majority of missiles have been shot down or have landed in open areas, though some advanced missiles have gotten through. Iran unveiled use of a new “Haj Qassem” medium-range missile for the first time, which was reportedly able to evade some Israeli defenses due to its higher speed and maneuverability. The introduction of such missiles led to devastating outcomes in a few instances. For example, one Haj Qassem missile struck a high-rise in the greater Tel Aviv area, causing dozens of casualties and overwhelming local rescue teams (this level of damage is something Israel previously experienced only from short-range rockets, not large ballistic missiles). Still, Iran’s missile barrages have become smaller under intense Israeli counter-strikes on launch sites. By June 16–17, Iran was firing missiles in smaller volleys (sometimes just 2–5 at a time) primarily at night, indicating its capacity to deliver large salvos has been curtailed – likely a result of losing so many launchers and bases to Israeli air strikes.

  • Iran’s drone attacks have complemented the missiles. Dozens of Shahed-series drones and other UAVs have been launched toward Israel; some have been shot down en route by Israeli fighter jets or air defenses, while others succeeded in hitting targets. Drones have smaller warheads but can be used to harass Israeli air bases or radar sites. So far, no single drone strike has caused massive damage, but the cumulative effect keeps Israel on high alert across all domains.

  • On the ground in Iran, the population is reeling from Israel’s bombardment. Civilian casualties in Iran have been heavy – at least 224 Iranians killed and 1,481 wounded by June 16, according to Iran’s Health Ministry. Many are non-combatants: Iranian media profiles have highlighted victims like teachers, athletes, and whole families killed when Israeli bombs leveled their homes. The war is literally in Tehran’s “backyard”; for the first time since the 1980s Iran–Iraq war, residents of Tehran are seeing missiles streak across their sky and explosions in the heart of their city. This has caused panic and disruption: tens of thousands of Tehranis are fleeing the capital, jamming highways and overrunning petrol stations in a desperate exodus. The government in Tehran has shut down civilian air traffic and frequently issues air-raid alerts. Nonetheless, Iran’s regime projects an image of resolve – state TV (before it was struck) broadcast images of mass funerals draped in Iranian flags, and banners across cities proclaim slogans like “You started the war, we will finish it.” Iran’s morale strategy is to cast itself as victim of aggression that must stand firm, hoping to garner domestic and international sympathy. Militarily, Iran continues to look for ways to hit back despite Israel’s air dominance – whether by missiles, drones, or potentially unconventional means (discussed under Cyber and Unconventional Warfare below).

• Proxy and Regional Fronts: Both Israel and Iran have long relied on regional proxies, and these actors are now being drawn into the fray, raising the risk of a wider war:

  • Lebanese Hezbollah: The Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon is the most powerful militia in the region, fielding an arsenal of some 150,000 rockets aimed at Israel. So far, Hezbollah’s direct involvement has been limited, but tensions on Israel’s northern border are high. There have been reports of sporadic rocket fire from southern Lebanon into Israel and Israeli retaliatory artillery strikes, but Hezbollah’s main forces have not yet opened a full second front. One reason may be that Hezbollah was significantly weakened in late 2024 – according to some experts, Israel dealt “significant blows” to Hezbollah during clashes last year, and even assassinated Hezbollah’s longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah prior to this war. (If true, Hezbollah may currently be in leadership disarray and less capable of mounting a major offensive.) Another factor is deterrence: Israel has made clear that if Hezbollah enters the war, Israel will respond with massive force in Lebanon. For now, Hezbollah’s calculations seem cautious; the group has issued statements condemning Israel’s attacks on Iran and put its fighters on alert, but it has “not stood idly by” entirely – one of Hezbollah’s associated Iraqi militias warned they would not watch Israel strike Iran without responding. Should the conflict drag on or if Iran’s regime is in dire straits, Hezbollah could unleash a barrage of rockets at Israeli cities to relieve pressure on Tehran. This scenario is one of Israel’s greatest fears – a multi-front war – and could greatly escalate casualties on both sides. In summary, Hezbollah is a wild card: currently restrained, but still a potent threat that could transform this war if unleashed.

  • Palestinian Groups: The conflict comes on the heels of a major Israel–Hamas war in 2023–24. In that Gaza war, Hamas was severely degraded by Israel’s 20-month-long military campaign. As a result, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been relatively quiet in this Israel–Iran war, lacking the capacity to open a significant new front. However, unrest has flared in the Palestinian territories – for instance, protests and clashes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as images of devastation in Tehran circulate, and in Gaza there have been demonstrations. Israeli forces reportedly killed dozens of Palestinians in Gaza who were near the Israeli border or in unrest, an incident that further inflamed regional public opinion. Hamas’s leadership (many of whom are actually based in Lebanon or Qatar) has rhetorically supported Iran, framing the fight as a common struggle against Israel. But with Gaza still recovering from the last war, Hamas is in no position to materially assist Iran now. Israel, nonetheless, remains vigilant; it has maintained the Gaza blockade and could respond harshly to any provocation there. In essence, Gaza is a secondary theater – volatile but not decisive in the Iran-Israel equation at present.

  • Syrian Theater: Syria has been a crucial conduit for Iranian influence (hosting IRGC bases and facilitating arms transfers to Hezbollah). Coming into 2025, however, the situation in Syria may have changed. Reports suggest the Assad regime in Syria has fallen or at least weakened severely by this point – a development that, if true, drastically affects Iran’s strategic depth. (Some analyses mention the “fall of Assad” and Israeli successes against Iranian footholds in Syria as factors enabling Israel to act against Iran directly.) Whether or not Assad is gone, Israel has expanded its operations in Syria in recent months. Israeli jets struck IRGC targets in Syria both prior to and during the current war, to preempt any attack from Iranian forces stationed there. Iran has historically used Syria (and the Golan Heights frontier) to threaten Israel, but now with Israel hitting Iran proper, any Iranian assets in Syria might also join the fight. Notably, Israeli strikes last year apparently took out portions of Iran’s air defenses in Syria, meaning Iran has fewer options to contest Israeli aircraft in that arena. There is also a presence of pro-Iran militias in Syria (such as Pakistani, Afghan Shia fighters under IRGC command) who could harass U.S. or Israeli positions. So far, however, the primary action remains centered on Iran and Israel themselves, not Syria. Syria’s role might become more prominent if, for example, Iran tries to send reinforcements westward or if Russia (which has forces in Syria) coordinates air defense support for Iran. For now, Syria is in the backdrop, with Israel ensuring that front stays relatively quiet.

  • Iraqi Militias: Iran wields influence over several Shi’a militias in Iraq, some of which have a track record of attacking U.S. bases. With war under way, these groups have declared their readiness to strike American and other targets if the conflict deepens. On June 17, four major Iran-backed Iraqi militias (including Kataib Hezbollah and others) announced a “joint plan” to target U.S. forces if the U.S. directly joins Israel’s campaign. Even absent formal U.S. entry, these militias might act: one militia warned they will not remain idle while “the Zionist enemy” attacks Iran. This raises the prospect of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria (where a few thousand remain) as an indirect way for Iran to retaliate. Already, between October 2023 and November 2024, Iranian-backed militias carried out ~200 rocket/drone attacks on U.S. positions in the region, and that campaign could resume or intensify now. The Iraqi government is in a bind, as it hosts U.S. advisors but many politicians align with Iran. Indeed, Iraqi political leaders from the pro-Iran Coordination Framework have called for public demonstrations supporting Iran, and protests in Baghdad saw crowds (including Kataib Hezbollah members) chanting in solidarity with Tehran. In response, the U.S. is accelerating plans to draw down some forces in Iraq by late 2025. In summary, Iraq could become a secondary battleground if Iran’s proxies there attack U.S. or Israeli interests, potentially opening another front (at least against U.S. forces). Thus far, no major incident has occurred, but the risk grows as the war drags on.

  • Houthis (Yemen): Another Iran-aligned group, the Houthis in Yemen, have openly vowed to “intervene to support Iran against Israel”. A senior Houthi official declared that they would not hesitate to act. Practically, the Houthis could fire long-range missiles or drones toward Israeli territory (they have done so on a smaller scale in the past in solidarity with Palestinians) or against shipping in the Red Sea. Yemen’s location means the Houthis could also threaten international shipping lanes, including those leading to Israel’s port of Eilat or through the Suez. Already, in late 2024, Houthis had attacked U.S. ships and bases in the region in a flare-up of tensions. Now, with full conflict, the Houthis may rejoin the fray. The U.S. Navy and regional partners are on high alert for any Houthi-launched cruise missiles or explosive drones that might be aimed at Israel or at Gulf oil infrastructure. So far, there are unconfirmed reports that the Houthis have launched some drones, but nothing that has caused significant damage. Nonetheless, the Houthi leadership’s statement indicates the war could expand southward if not contained.

  • Others: There are other regional actors to watch. For example, Turkey – while not a proxy, it controls airspace and territory that could be relevant (missiles flying over, potential mediator role). Jordan has already been incidentally impacted: Jordan’s military intercepted ballistic missiles that entered its airspace during the Iran–Israel exchanges. Jordan and Egypt, both peace partners of Israel, are nervous about spillover; Jordan in fact closed its airspace temporarily and is maintaining air defenses on alert. Pakistan (sharing a border with Iran) closed its border crossings as a precaution once fighting started. This illustrates how countries around the region are bracing for instability – closing borders, activating defenses, and preparing humanitarian responses.

• Cyber Warfare and Information Operations: A significant but less visible front is the cyber domain. Both Israel and Iran possess considerable cyber capabilities and have engaged in tit-for-tat cyber attacks for years. In the context of the current conflict, cyber warfare serves as a tool for espionage, disruption, and propaganda:

  • Israel’s elite cyber units (such as the military’s Unit 8200) are likely attempting to hack into Iranian military networks, air defense systems, and critical infrastructure to amplify the impact of physical strikes. It’s plausible, for instance, that Israeli cyberattacks helped blind Iranian radar or disrupt command communications during the initial air raids (similar to how Israel has reportedly used electronic warfare in past operations). Although specific cyber operations are classified, Israeli officials hinted that preparation for the Iran strikes included “all aspects of warfare,” which implicitly includes cyber sabotage.

  • Iran, for its part, has a record of offensive cyber actions through the IRGC’s cyber units and allied hacker groups. With bombs falling on Tehran, Iran might retaliate in cyberspace by attacking Israeli critical infrastructure – power grids, water systems, financial systems, transportation networks, etc. Already, Iran has in the past tried to poison Israeli water facilities via hacking (as in a 2020 incident), and now the incentive to inflict damage through such means is higher. Israeli cyber defenses are strong, but the volume of attacks has surged. There are reports (though not officially confirmed) that Iranian hackers attempted to breach Israel’s electric grid and caused temporary outages in parts of Tel Aviv. Likewise, Iranian cyber units may target U.S. infrastructure as a warning; U.S. agencies have raised alerts about potential Iranian cyberattacks on American banking or energy sectors if Iran perceives U.S. involvement.

  • In addition to direct cyber-sabotage, the information warfare aspect is intense. Both sides are pushing their narrative online and in the media. Iran’s state media showed graphic images of civilian casualties and dubbed the conflict “the 2025 war of Israeli aggression,” seeking to galvanize Muslim and global opinion against Israel. Israel, meanwhile, emphasizes that it is acting in self-defense to preempt a nuclear Iran, and it accuses Tehran of spreading disinformation. A notable episode was the Israeli missile strike on Iran’s state TV headquarters: Israeli Defense Minister Katz called the channel “the mouthpiece of Iranian propaganda” and warned it was about to disappear. After the strike knocked the channel off air, Iran’s government issued threats to Israeli media in retaliation, warning Israel’s N12 and N14 news channels to evacuate their studios or face consequences. This exchange highlights that media outlets themselves have become targets in this conflict, a phenomenon of modern information-centric warfare.

  • Psychological operations are also underway in cyberspace. Pro-Israel hackers have defaced Iranian government websites with messages blaming the regime for bringing war upon the people. Pro-Iran hackers (like the group “Yellow Iran”) have leaked what they claim are Israeli military documents and have spread alarm with false reports (for example, fake alerts of a successful strike on Israel’s Dimona reactor circulated online but were debunked). Both governments are fighting an “online propaganda war”, attempting to control the narrative domestically and internationally. The objective for Israel is to maintain international legitimacy and domestic unity; for Iran, it is to inspire resistance at home and outrage abroad against Israel’s tactics.

  • In sum, while bombs and missiles cause physical destruction, the cyber battlefield is active in parallel. Analysts note Iran still has “asymmetric tools at its disposal – cyber, sabotage, terrorism, and the like” beyond missiles. Thus far, no cyberattack has caused a known large-scale catastrophe, but the potential is there. Both nations are on guard for a major cyber strike (such as crippling each other’s banking system or hacking satellites). The longer the conflict persists, the more likely one side might attempt a high-impact cyber offensive. Additionally, any ceasefire will have to account for cyber actions, as these can continue even after kinetic operations pause.

• Diplomatic and Economic Situation: Diplomatically, Israel and Iran are locked in a war of words at international forums. At a United Nations Security Council emergency session on June 13, UN officials urged “maximum restraint” and warned that a wider regional war must be prevented at all costs. Iran’s UN ambassador declared Israel’s attack a blatant “declaration of war” and lambasted countries supporting Israel as abettors of war crimes. Israel’s envoy responded that Iran left it no choice, claiming Iran was “days away” from enough bomb material and Israel acted in national preservation: “How long did the world expect us to wait?”. The U.S. representative at the UN backed Israel’s right to self-defense and bluntly warned Tehran that any attack on American citizens or bases would have “dire consequences”, urging Iran’s leaders to negotiate rather than escalate. Meanwhile, Russia and China in the Security Council criticized the Israeli strikes and called for an immediate halt to fighting, though their statements stopped short of explicitly condemning Iran’s missile response. Both Moscow and Beijing have since tried to cast themselves as potential peacemakers in this conflict – Chinese and Russian diplomats have been in contact with Tehran offering to mediate and urging de-escalation. However, formal mediation has yet to gain traction as the violence continues unabated.

  Economically, the conflict’s shockwaves are already being felt globally (detailed further in a later section). Oil prices spiked on news of the war’s outbreak, given fears of disruption in the vital Persian Gulf region. Brent crude jumped almost 7%, from around $70 to about $74.60 per barrel in the first trading days after Israel’s surprise attack. Investors initially panicked, moving money into safe havens like gold, though markets have since stabilized somewhat on hopes the conflict might be contained. Within the region, normal commerce is disrupted: Israel and Iran both closed their airspaces to civilian flights, causing major airlines to cancel routes across the Middle East. Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport has been effectively shut down since June 13, stranding travelers, and Iran’s aviation authority likewise halted all commercial flights for safety. Land trade is also affected, as seen by Pakistan closing its border with Iran indefinitely. Neighboring countries are bracing for economic fallout; for example, Jordan and Gulf states are preparing for potential influxes of refugees or migrant workers returning from Israel and Iran. The humanitarian situation could become severe if the war continues – Iran has significant internal displacement from the strikes, and there are reports of shortages of medical supplies in Tehran due to the sudden influx of mass-casualty incidents. International aid agencies are appealing for pauses in fighting to allow relief convoys, but so far there’s no formal humanitarian corridor. Both Israel and Iran are determined to project strength, limiting their willingness to pause for aid.

In summary, the current conflict is a rapidly evolving multi-dimensional war. Militarily, Israel has the upper hand in the air and has dealt heavy blows to Iran’s infrastructure and arsenal, but Iran still manages to inflict pain through missiles that test Israel’s defenses and sow fear among civilians. Diplomatically, neither side is ready to back down, trading barbs in global forums even as behind-the-scenes some powers explore ceasefire ideas. The involvement of proxy forces remains limited but could explode at any moment, turning a bilateral conflict into a regional conflagration. Both nations are also leveraging cyber and propaganda tools, meaning the war is being fought on a psychological level as well. With each passing day of combat, the stakes rise – which leads to the question of possible escalation paths and triggers for a wider war, addressed in the next section.

Potential Paths to Escalation and Triggers for Full-Scale War

While the conflict is already severe, observers distinguish between the current intensity and a “full-scale war” in its absolute worst form. Here, “full-scale war” implies a no-holds-barred, region-wide conflict possibly involving multiple nations and even weapons of mass destruction. Several scenarios could lead to such escalation:

• Continued Iranian Missile Strikes and Israeli Counter-escalation: If Iran continues or increases its missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities, Israel may feel compelled to dramatically escalate its military response. One trigger could be a single attack causing extremely high Israeli casualties (for example, a missile hitting a packed civilian target like a skyscraper, stadium, or chemical plant). Thus far, casualties in Israel, while tragic (at least 24 dead, ~380 wounded), have been somewhat contained by Israel’s defenses. But a mass-casualty event could harden Israeli resolve to take even more drastic measures. Israel might then consider targeting Iran’s top leadership (e.g., attempting to strike the Supreme Leader or presidential compounds) – an action Tehran would view as an existential threat. Likewise, Israel could decide to employ “deep strike” options such as bunker-busting Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites at Fordow or even using unconventional means if conventional bombing fails. Each ratcheting up increases the danger of full-scale war.

• Nuclear Threshold Crossing: The original casus belli was Iran’s nuclear program reaching weapons-grade thresholds. If Iran, under attack, were to take steps toward an actual nuclear weapon – for instance, kicking out IAEA inspectors and racing to enrich uranium to 90% (weapons-grade) or even conducting a nuclear test – Israel (and possibly the U.S.) would likely see that as a red line justifying any force necessary to stop it. Such a scenario could prompt direct U.S. military intervention alongside Israel to eliminate nuclear facilities, raising the conflict to a higher tier. Conversely, if Israel’s strikes are perceived as too successful, Iran might feel it has nothing to lose and announce it will pursue a bomb outright as a deterrent. Experts warn that the current conflict “could lead to a nuclearized Middle East” if Iran’s resolve to build a weapon hardens in response to the attacks. This nuclear brinkmanship would be extremely destabilizing and could draw in global powers more directly, escalating the war diplomatically or even militarily.

• Direct U.S. Involvement: Although the U.S. insists it is not a combatant, certain events could pull American forces into active fighting, effectively broadening the war. One obvious trigger is an Iranian attack on U.S. forces. Iran has already threatened that if the U.S. strikes Iran, it will retaliate by attacking American bases in Iraq and the Gulf. In fact, Iran’s contingency planning (as reported by The New York Times) is to first hit U.S. positions in Iraq, then possibly other bases in Arab countries, should the U.S. directly join the conflict. Iranian-backed militias stand ready to execute such attacks. If any of these groups launch rockets that kill a number of U.S. troops, President Trump would face enormous pressure to respond militarily against them or Iran itself. Trump has already warned Iran of “dire consequences” if Americans are targeted. Direct clashes between U.S. and Iranian forces – whether in the Gulf (e.g., Iranian anti-ship missiles at U.S. Navy vessels) or in Iraq/Syria – could quickly spiral. The U.S. might then conduct its own air strikes on Iran’s military (e.g., naval bases, missile sites beyond what Israel has hit). Iran, in turn, could consider closing the Strait of Hormuz as a desperation move (mining the strait or using anti-ship missiles). Iranian officials and lawmakers have explicitly raised the possibility of closing Hormuz if fighting continues. Such an action would choke off one-third of the world’s seaborne oil supply, almost certainly provoking international military intervention to reopen the waterway. A U.S.-led naval campaign against Iran’s navy and coastal defenses would then be on the table – essentially a war within a war. In short, any miscalculation that causes U.S. casualties or threatens global oil transit could widen the conflict vastly.

• Regional Allies Entering the War: The longer and fiercer the conflict between Israel and Iran becomes, the more likely other regional actors might be dragged in, intentionally or not:

  • Hezbollah massive intervention – If Hezbollah chooses to unleash its full rocket arsenal at Israel in solidarity with Iran, Israel would treat that as a second war. The IDF would mobilize ground forces to potentially invade south Lebanon to neutralize launch sites, something that could cause thousands of casualties and tremendous destruction in Lebanon. Iran would welcome Hezbollah’s engagement as it divides Israel’s attention. This scenario could occur if Iran’s leadership appeals to Hezbollah as a last resort (“if we go down, take them with us” mentality), or if an Israeli strike accidentally kills Hezbollah fighters or leadership, provoking them. The result could be a multi-front war: Israel vs. Iran and Hezbollah (and possibly other Iran-backed factions) simultaneously. That is essentially the nightmare “full-scale war” scenario Israeli planners have sought to avoid for years.

  • Syria and Iraqi Militias – If Iranian and allied militia rockets start flying from Syria or Iraq toward Israel (or toward U.S. allies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia), those countries might respond militarily. For instance, if rockets from Iraqi territory hit Israel’s Dimona reactor or a major city, Israel could strike those launch sites inside Iraq – which might violate Iraq’s sovereignty and cause Baghdad to protest or even skirmish. Similarly, if elements in Syria (IRGC remnants or militias) join the fight, Israel will intensify strikes in Syria; if Syrian government troops (who might be loyalists even if Assad fell) retaliate, that front heats up. Turkey could also get involved if spillover threatens its interests (for example, stray missiles hitting Turkish territory or refugees flooding its borders).

  • Arab Gulf States – Thus far, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are trying to stay out of the fray. But there are plausible triggers involving them. If Iran attempts to close Hormuz or if Iranian missiles accidentally hit, say, a Saudi oil facility (as happened in a 2019 Iranian-claimed attack on Abqaiq), the Gulf states might allow or even request U.S. retaliation on Iran from their soil. They might also quietly cooperate with Israel – providing intelligence or overflight rights – if they conclude Iran is a mutual threat. Saudi Arabia, having recently pursued a diplomatic détente with Iran (the 2023 China-brokered Riyadh–Tehran normalization), is in a precarious spot. Riyadh does not want Iran to triumph, but it also fears being targeted if it overtly supports Israel. A trigger like an errant missile hitting Dubai or Riyadh could force these states off the fence. They could then contribute military assets (for example, Gulf Cooperation Council air forces might join a U.S.-led coalition to secure Gulf waters). This would turn a Israel–Iran war into a regional Arab-Iran war as well.

  • Unconventional/WMD Use – The gravest escalation path would be the use of weapons of mass destruction. Iran does not have nuclear weapons (and is unlikely to have chemical or biological warfare ready for deployment), and Israel is assumed to have nuclear weapons but would be extremely reluctant to use them except in the most dire existential scenario. However, one can imagine a desperate regime considering extreme measures. If Iran’s regime felt it was literally about to collapse due to Israeli bombing and internal unrest, some hardliners might push for a “Samson option” of sorts – for example, transferring radiological materials to a terrorist proxy to detonate a “dirty bomb” in Tel Aviv, or using stockpiled chemical agents via drone strikes. Any confirmed use of chem/bio by Iran would cross international red lines and could trigger a massive response (possibly even drawing NATO support for Israel). Likewise, if an Iranian missile were to be armed with, say, a chemical warhead and hit an Israeli city causing mass chemical poisoning, Israel’s retaliation might be overwhelming and not just conventional. Nuclear weapons use is thankfully highly unlikely in this conflict – but the mere possibility underscores why global powers are so anxious to prevent escalation. Both Washington and Moscow have likely privately communicated to all sides that WMD use is absolutely forbidden.

  • Accidents and Miscommunications: Wars can escalate through mistakes. With missiles flying through multiple countries’ airspace, the risk of hitting the wrong target exists. A stray Iranian missile already traversed Jordan’s airspace (and was intercepted); if one hit Amman by accident, Jordan might respond militarily. Similarly, Israel’s long-range missiles or drones might unintentionally violate Russian-patrolled zones in Syria or U.S.-patrolled zones in Iraq, potentially leading to unintended firefights. The dense presence of foreign military assets (Russian bases in Syria, U.S. ships in Gulf, etc.) means an accident could entangle those forces. For example, if an Iranian missile mistakenly hit a U.S. Navy vessel or a Russian base, even without intent, it could spark retaliation under the fog of war.

In summary, the conflict could escalate to a truly full-scale war if additional actors join the fight or if either Israel or Iran (or the U.S.) decides to remove previous limits on their use of force. Triggers include: a game-changing high-casualty attack, perceived crossing of the nuclear threshold, direct strikes on U.S. or allied assets, calls for help by either side’s allies (Iran urging proxies or Israel seeking U.S. reinforcement), or the deliberate closing of global trade chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. Each of these would broaden the conflict’s scope. The fact that both Israel and Iran have so far refrained from some extreme measures (e.g., Iran has not struck U.S. bases yet; Israel has kept the conflict mostly bilateral) suggests a mutual caution against uncontrolled escalation. However, as hostilities grind on, the margin for error shrinks. International observers fear a “wider regional conflict” is looming if restraint is not exercised. UN officials have urgently appealed for de-escalation precisely to avoid these doomsday triggers.

Role of the United States and Nature of U.S. Support

The United States is Israel’s closest ally and has been a key player in the Iran-Israel standoff. Under the current leadership of President Trump, the U.S. has provided strong rhetorical and logistical support to Israel, while trying (so far) to avoid direct combat engagement. Here we outline how the U.S. is involved and what support it is offering, as well as how this might evolve:

• Diplomatic Backing: From day one of the conflict, Washington has firmly backed Israel’s right to self-defense. At the UN Security Council emergency meeting, the U.S. representative defended the Israeli strikes as “necessary” to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb and placed blame squarely on Iran’s provocations. The U.S. has blocked or watered down any UN resolution that could be seen as undermining Israel’s military action. This diplomatic shield is critical for Israel, as it faces criticism from various countries over civilian casualties. President Trump himself has been somewhat two-sided in public comments – expressing hope for a quick peace but also insisting “sometimes they have to fight it out” when asked if he urged Israel to stop. Trump has not publicly pressured Netanyahu to cease operations. In fact, he has indicated he knew in advance of Israel’s plan and did not veto it (Trump described Israel’s attack as “unilateral” but acknowledged he was informed). This implies a tacit green light from Washington. Additionally, Trump’s messages to Tehran have oscillated between warnings and offers of talks: he urged Iran and Israel to “talk immediately” about de-escalation at one point, yet also demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender” in a more bellicose statement. The overall stance, however, is that the U.S. stands by Israel as its principal ally.

• Military Aid and Equipment: While U.S. forces have not directly joined the battle, the U.S. is materially supporting Israel in several ways:

  • Air Defense and Intelligence: The U.S. is providing Israel with additional missile defense interceptors and technical support to counter Iran’s projectiles. The conflict has severely tested Israel’s multi-layered missile shield (Iron Dome for short-range, David’s Sling for medium, Arrow for long-range). To replenish interceptors expended daily, the Pentagon has been flying in stocks of Iron Dome and Patriot missiles. Moreover, the U.S. has likely deployed TPY-2 radar and other detection systems to augment Israel’s early warning. American intelligence assets are also in play – U.S. ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms, from satellites to possibly drones and AWACS, are feeding Israel targeting data on Iranian launch positions and troop movements. In fact, Iran’s UN envoy accused the U.S. of providing Israel with intelligence for its strikes (which the U.S. did not deny, only stating it wasn’t “militarily” involved in the strikes). This likely refers to U.S. satellite imagery and signals intelligence that helped Israel identify key targets like underground bunkers and moving missile launchers. Such intel sharing is a form of indirect but crucial support.

  • Logistics and Arms Resupply: As the conflict consumes Israeli precision-guided munitions and other weaponry, the U.S. is opening its stockpiles. Notably, the U.S. maintains a War Reserve Stockpile in Israel (WRSA-I) – munitions pre-positioned for emergencies. Israeli forces have tapped into this reserve with U.S. approval to draw artillery shells and bunker-busting bombs. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense has fast-tracked approvals for new deliveries of advanced ordnance (e.g., more JDAM smart bombs, anti-bunker GBU-72 bombs, etc.). On the defensive side, the U.S. has sent additional THAAD and Patriot batteries to the Middle East to help protect American bases and possibly reinforce Israeli coverage if needed. There are reports of a U.S. THAAD system deployed to southern Israel quietly, to bolster high-altitude interception against any Iranian long-range missiles that might have evaded Arrow. Financially, the U.S. administration has also signaled readiness to seek an emergency aid package from Congress to support Israel’s war effort, which could include hundreds of millions of dollars for missile defense and replenishment of weapons.

  • Forward Deployment of U.S. Forces (Deterrence): In response to the conflict, the Pentagon has moved additional forces into the region as a deterrent signal. A U.S. Navy carrier strike group (led by, for example, the USS Gerald R. Ford) has been ordered to the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean area, and an Amphibious Ready Group with Marines is on standby in the Red Sea. The presence of these naval assets is meant to caution Iran against any attempt to widen the war to U.S. or Gulf targets. The U.S. Air Force has also likely repositioned some squadrons – reports indicate that by mid-June, American F-15 and F-16 fighter jets were moved to bases in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and B-52 bombers were deployed to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These moves are ostensibly defensive, but they also provide the capability for quick offensive action if Washington decides it’s necessary. The U.S. has publicly stated these deployments are to protect its interests and “to send a message” to Iran. As part of force protection, the U.S. evacuated non-essential personnel from embassies in Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain just before the war began – a hint that the U.S. had foreknowledge of Israel’s strike and anticipated potential Iranian reactions. All of this points to a posture where American forces are “nearby but not directly engaged,” ready to step in if certain red lines are crossed (like attacks on Americans or Hormuz closure).

  • Potential Direct Support: So far, President Trump has refrained from committing U.S. combat forces to Israel’s offensive. However, he has hinted at the possibility in public comments. He noted that the fighting “may be prolonged” and that while he hopes for a deal, “sometimes they have to fight it out”, declining to say if he’s urging Israel to limit its attacks. This ambiguity leaves open the option that if Israel were in serious peril or if Iran escalated dramatically, the U.S. could intervene. For instance, Washington could enforce a no-fly zone over western Iran (preventing Iran’s air force from operating) or even conduct strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile launch sites if Israel requests help. Another form of support short of direct fighting is cyber operations: U.S. Cyber Command might already be working with Israel to disrupt Iranian command networks or missile control systems. Given the U.S. capability, one can imagine U.S. cyber offensives helping to neutralize some of Iran’s defenses in real time (although such actions would be covert).

  • Politically, any U.S. involvement beyond current levels is sensitive. President Trump’s core supporters largely oppose new Middle East wars. Trump himself won election on criticism of Iraq/Afghanistan entanglements. So while he fiercely supports Israel, he is cautious about a large deployment of American troops. Indeed, voices in the Republican MAGA base say “drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.”. This domestic pressure acts as a leash on how far Trump will go. At present, the likely scenario is the U.S. continues with robust indirect support – intelligence, weapons, and defensive deployments – but avoids putting “boots on the ground” or conducting strikes unless absolutely necessary. The White House has stressed that the U.S. is not a direct combatant even while it beefs up regional presence. The calculus could change if Iran does something perceived as a direct attack on the U.S. or an ally (e.g., firing missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar or hitting a Saudi oil terminal). In that case, Trump might feel justified to respond militarily against Iran and likely would get bipartisan political support for limited action. But short of that, Washington’s involvement will likely remain in the realm of “arsenal and shield” for Israel: keep Israel supplied and help shield it from the worst blows, while urging (publicly or privately) a resolution before things spiral out of control.

In summary, under Trump’s leadership the U.S. has effectively aligned itself as Israel’s strategic rear guard and armorer in this conflict. The types of support include financial aid (emergency funds to resupply weapons), military aid (munitions, defenses), intelligence sharing, and possibly covert operations. U.S. troops have not been deployed into Israel (aside from liaison teams) and Trump seems intent on avoiding a direct U.S.–Iran shooting war, cognizant of domestic opinion. Nonetheless, the presence of American forces in the theater and Trump’s own warning that Iran must surrender or face worse keeps the door open to U.S. escalation if provoked. Essentially, the U.S. stands as both a supporter and a deterrent – supporting Israel’s campaign success, and deterring Iran from expanding the war to U.S. or third-country targets by its visible military readiness. What the U.S. chooses to do going forward – continue behind-the-scenes support, or step in overtly – will heavily influence whether the conflict winds down or blows up further.

Projected Outcomes: Who Would Win? How Long Could War Last? Consequences for Israel, Iran, and Beyond

Predicting the outcome of an ongoing war is fraught with uncertainty, but based on current indicators and expert analyses, we can outline several plausible projections regarding the duration, likely victor, and impacts:

• Likely Duration of the Conflict: Most military analysts anticipate that this direct Israel–Iran war, in its high-intensity phase, is likely to be relatively short (measured in days or weeks, not years) unless a major new front opens. A “long war” scenario – grinding on for months – is considered less likely given the immense costs and international pressure involved. One reason is that both sides have finite arsenals of advanced munitions. Israel has used a large portion of its air-launched cruise missiles and “bunker busters” in the opening strikes; Iran has fired a significant fraction of its missile stockpile (and a good part of what remains has been destroyed on the ground by Israeli raids). While both can sustain combat for a time, their high-end capabilities will diminish. Heather Williams of RAND assesses that this stage of open conflict “is likely to last only days to weeks” before a shift in dynamics. Indeed, as of day 5, we see some leveling off: Iran’s salvo sizes have dropped, and Israel has hit most priority targets, potentially indicating a transition from all-out strikes to a more measured campaign. Moreover, international actors are pushing hard for a ceasefire. Diplomatic efforts (from the EU, UN, and even quiet U.S. outreach via Oman or Qatar) are intensifying as civilian tolls rise. It’s possible we will see a pause agreement or tentative ceasefire within a couple of weeks if neither side achieves a decisive knockout. If, however, escalation triggers (like those discussed earlier) come into play – e.g., Hezbollah joins in or the U.S. enters – that could extend the conflict by broadening its scope. A regional war involving multiple states might last longer and be more difficult to halt quickly. But absent that, the most likely course is a sharp, violent conflict lasting on the order of one to a few weeks, followed by some form of negotiated halt or unwritten mutual de-escalation once each side feels it has secured core objectives (Israel degrading Iran’s nuclear/missile capability, Iran saving face with retaliation).

• Likely Victor (Military Perspective): On a strictly military basis, Israel is poised to come out on top in this confrontation, though not without cost. Israel entered the conflict with decisive advantages: a modern air force with regional reach, superior intelligence, and advanced defense systems, plus potential U.S. backing. Those advantages have manifested clearly in the early days – Israel has achieved air superiority over Iran and successfully struck critical targets deep inside Iranian territory. Iran’s ability to seriously damage Israel’s war-fighting capacity is limited; while Iranian missiles have terrorized civilians, they have not crippled the Israeli Defense Forces or its infrastructure in any fundamental way (for instance, the IDF command, air bases, and major economic nodes remain functional, with sporadic hits but not systemic destruction). If the war were to continue at full tilt, Israel’s military would likely continue to erode Iran’s capabilities at a faster rate than Iran can inflict on Israel. Israel’s precision strikes have systematically removed Iranian launchers, command centers, and potentially some of Iran’s navy and air defense sites. Over time, Iran’s ability to strike back would wane further. Analysts generally believe that in a protracted exchange, Israel (with its technological edge and potential unlimited resupply from the U.S.) can “permanently harm” Iran’s military capacity beyond just the nuclear program. An Israeli victory in the narrow sense would mean Iran’s nuclear program is set back by years and its missile forces and IRGC infrastructure are in ruins, while Israel survives as a state with its military power intact. By those metrics, Israel is on track or at least has the upper hand.

  However, victory is not purely military. Iran, though outmatched in conventional war, has avenues to claim its own victory or at least deny victory to Israel. Tehran’s strategy is to withstand the Israeli onslaught and still be standing at the end – thereby claiming that the Islamic Republic resisted and survived Israel (and by extension U.S.) aggression. If Iran’s regime remains in power and its nuclear expertise is not eliminated (equipment can be rebuilt, scientists replaced if not killed), Iran might argue it has “prevailed” by not capitulating. In asymmetric conflicts, simply not losing outright can be a form of victory. Furthermore, Iran’s missile strikes causing significant damage in Israel have already shattered the sense of Israeli invulnerability. Iranian media point out that Israel has “for the first time experienced devastation in its major cities” from Iranian missiles, something no Arab state managed in past wars. This propaganda win bolsters Iran’s narrative. That said, if a ceasefire occurred today, Israel would clearly be in the stronger position – Iran’s offensive arsenal would be decimated and its nuclear sites badly damaged, essentially accomplishing many of Israel’s goals, whereas Iran’s attacks, while painful, would not have fundamentally broken Israel’s capacity to fight.

  In a protracted conflict, Israel’s edge tends to grow due to its qualitative superiority and external support. One RAND expert succinctly noted that from a pure strategic view, weakening Iran inherently harms the interests of its patrons Russia and China, which “de facto” benefits the U.S./Israel side. Therefore, if no outside force intervenes decisively on Iran’s behalf, Israel is the likely military victor. This could mean Iran’s conventional forces are beaten and Iran is forced to accept constraints (possibly returning to negotiations from a weaker position).

• Reasons for the Likely Outcome: Israel’s advantages include:

  • Technological and Air Superiority: Israel’s air force and drones have struck with impunity deep in Iran. Iran’s outdated air force and air defenses have struggled; some Iranian SAM batteries were destroyed early on, and others may be conserving missiles. This dominance allows Israel to dictate the tempo of war, striking at will. Iran’s inability to contest the skies means it must rely on missiles/drones which are increasingly intercepted or pre-empted.

  • Intelligence and Preparation: The success of Israel’s initial decapitation strike (eliminating top Iranian commanders in a bunker) shows excellent intelligence penetration of Iran. Israel likely spent years preparing target lists and gathering intel. Iran was caught off-guard by the timing (Israel achieved tactical surprise). Superior intel allows Israel to hit valuable targets (e.g. specific missile launchers, leadership meetings) while Iran’s targeting is more indiscriminate (hitting cities rather than specific military nodes).

  • External Support: As described, U.S. support greatly amplifies Israel’s endurance. With virtually limitless resupply of interceptors and critical munitions from the U.S., Israel can sustain operations longer than Iran, which is isolated and sanctioned. Iran’s usual suppliers, like Russia, are constrained (Russia is itself engaged in Ukraine and not in a position to airlift large aid, beyond perhaps some ammo or advisory help). China and others are urging talks, not rushing arms to Iran. Thus, Israel enjoys a support network Iran lacks.

  • Iran’s Constraints: Iran’s military, while large on paper, faces qualitative and logistical constraints. Many of its missiles are being used or destroyed. Its economy is under strain and now suffering further from war disruption and likely even more sanctions. Iran also wants to avoid provoking certain responses – for instance, it has so far avoided directly striking U.S. bases or Gulf oil infrastructure, likely fearing an overpowering reaction. This self-restraint (borne of regime survival instincts) actually limits Iran’s offensive scope. Iran’s Supreme Leader, known for caution at critical moments, will try to avoid crossing thresholds that trigger regime-ending intervention by the U.S. Therefore Iran fights with one eye on not inviting too much wrath, which inherently caps its escalation. This cautious approach means Iran might have to settle for symbolic retaliations rather than anything disabling to Israel.

  All these factors suggest Israel can accomplish most of its military objectives (destroying key nuclear facilities and degrading Iran’s missile threat) if the war continues on the current trajectory. Iran can continue to fire missiles and cause damage, but each day its capacity diminishes. Unless something changes the equation, “time is on Israel’s side” militarily speaking.

• Political and Strategic Outcomes: Beyond the battlefield, there are complex political results to consider:

  • For Israel: A short-term military victory could come with long-term costs. If Israel “wins” by badly hobbling Iran’s nuclear program and war machine, Netanyahu’s government will claim a historic triumph. Netanyahu would burnish his legacy as the man who took out Iran’s bomb-making ability – something he has warned about for decades. Israel’s regional standing among Abraham Accords partners (UAE, Bahrain) might paradoxically improve if Iran is seen weakened; those states quietly prefer a weaker Iran even as they publicly lament the violence. However, Israel would also face international backlash for the civilian casualties inflicted in Iran and any perception of overreach (attacking hospitals, etc., has already drawn criticism). This could increase Israel’s isolation in some global forums and fuel anti-Israel sentiment in the Muslim world. Domestically, Netanyahu might find a temporary boost in unity and sideline domestic opposition, but if the war’s aftermath is messy (e.g., if Iran regenerates its program or if Hezbollah later strikes), Israelis might question whether the war achieved lasting security. A key strategic risk for Israel is that this conflict might “harden Iran’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons” once and for all. Having been attacked, even moderates in Iran may conclude they need a nuclear deterrent to prevent future strikes. If that happens, Israel could face an even more determined adversary in the long run, essentially accelerating the nuclear race it sought to stop. Additionally, Israel must now brace for potentially increased hostility from Iran’s proxies post-war – while they stayed relatively quiet during the main conflict, groups like Hezbollah or militias might seek revenge down the line when Israel is less prepared. Strategically, Israel will have to maintain a high state of readiness for the foreseeable future, and that is a heavy burden economically and socially.

  • For Iran: If Iran weathers the storm without regime change, it will declare victory in survival. The Islamic Republic can rally supporters by saying it stood up to the “Zionist-American” onslaught. In the region, Iran might gain some sympathy: many in the Arab street and in Muslim countries see the imagery of Iranian civilians killed and may blame Israel. The conflict could boost anti-Israel sentiment and perhaps slow down any nascent Saudi-Israel normalization (Riyadh would find it harder to openly align with Israel after this). However, Iran emerges militarily weakened. Years of investment in missiles and forward bases would be lost. The nuclear program – while knowledge cannot be bombed away – would be set back by the destruction of facilities and equipment. Economically, the war could be devastating: even a few weeks of strikes have damaged refineries (e.g., a blaze at the massive South Pars gas field), and war risk has scared off foreign trade (even China and India might pause oil imports during hostilities). Reconstructing will be costly at a time Iran’s economy is already battered by sanctions. Politically, the regime’s popularity could go either way. Initially there is rally-around-the-flag, but if daily life remains upended (blackouts, fuel shortages, unsafe streets) and especially if it becomes clear that Iran’s leadership provoked a war that left the country worse off, public anger could resurface. The regime will likely double down on repression (as indicated by Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s domestic surveillance infrastructure to exploit that possibility). In a post-war scenario, if Khamenei’s government holds on, it may purge any elements seen as insufficiently hardline and pursue nuclear weapons more openly. Conversely, some analysts speculate that a stinging military defeat could weaken the regime’s grip and embolden opposition – war losses combined with economic pain might trigger protests or elite rifts (though a full revolutionary scenario is speculative). Internationally, Iran might find a bit of relief in that Russia and China, while not intervening militarily, may step up diplomatic support for Iran after the war. They could offer economic lifelines or arms sales to re-arm Iran (much like how Egypt and Syria were rearmed by the USSR after the 1973 war). This could pull Iran even closer to the Russia-China axis, altering regional alignments further.

  • For the Region: The Middle East would likely be destabilized in the immediate aftermath. Security dilemmas will sharpen: Arab states, terrified by seeing Iran and Israel exchange missile strikes over their heads, may race to acquire better missile defenses or even their own missile arsenals. Saudi Arabia and Turkey might seriously consider nuclear programs or nuclear weapon acquisition if Iran’s drive for a bomb intensifies post-war – they will not want to be left vulnerable in a future Iran-Israel showdown. The war also risks entrenching new blocs: Israel openly aligned with Sunni Arab states in opposition to Iran (even if quietly), versus Iran aligning with groups like Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi (Iraq), and so forth. This could mean future conflicts along that fault line. On the other hand, the sheer horror of this war might spur diplomatic initiatives: for instance, international powers might revive talks for a new nuclear agreement or regional security framework to prevent a repeat. There could be impetus for a “Helsinki-like” process in the Gulf – though given mistrust, that’s an uphill battle.

  • For Global Powers: The war’s outcome will influence global geopolitics. The United States, if staying relatively uninvolved militarily, might see its position strengthened if Israel achieves its aims – one less nuclear foe to worry about for a while. But Washington also risks a scenario where it’s drawn in or blamed for enabling a humanitarian disaster. Russia and China stand to gain clout if they position as mediators or if U.S. influence in the MidEast is tarnished by the conflict. Both have balanced interests: China wants stability for oil; Russia enjoys higher oil prices but doesn’t want Iran entirely crippled (Iran provides drones and ties into Russia’s anti-West camp). A weakened Iran might make Russia and China woo it even more tightly into their orbit with security guarantees or economic deals, in essence deepening the bifurcation of Cold War-like lines. If the war ends quickly with Israel’s advantage, the U.S. and Israel will claim a win for non-proliferation and deterrence; if it bogs down or has ugly consequences, rivals will use it as evidence of Western recklessness.

  • Economic Outcomes: Globally, the conflict’s short-term economic effect is spiking oil prices and injecting uncertainty into markets. A full-scale prolonged war could push oil well above $100/barrel, which would stoke inflation and slow growth worldwide. So far, prices hit around mid-$70s and then stabilized, suggesting traders expect a resolution. If the war indeed is short, the oil market may settle back, though possibly at a somewhat higher baseline reflecting a new risk premium. Countries like the U.S., which are large oil producers now, actually benefit somewhat from higher oil prices (as do Russia and Gulf producers), whereas Europe, China, and developing nations suffer due to import costs. If Hormuz were closed even briefly, the shock would be severe – but as noted, Iran closing Hormuz would hurt itself and its friends (China) most, so it’s a last resort. Should peace return, Iran will face the costly task of rebuilding destroyed oil infrastructure (like South Pars gas facilities); this could keep some Iranian oil/gas offline longer, affecting supply. Also, insurance rates for shipping in the Persian Gulf have likely soared during conflict, increasing costs for all trade through the Gulf. That could linger until stability is assured. Another economic ripple: defense spending in the region will increase – nations will buy more missile defenses, strike weapons, etc., which is a boon for arms industries (U.S., Russia, etc.). Meanwhile, global investors seeing Middle East turmoil might pivot investments to safer regions, potentially affecting currency values and capital flows. Central banks, as one analyst noted, would have reduced flexibility if energy prices surge; they may delay interest rate cuts or even hike again to combat war-induced inflation.

• Contradictory Viewpoints: It’s worth noting that not everyone agrees on the ease of an Israeli victory. Some experts caution that even if Israel “wins” by military metrics, it might face a Pyrrhic victory. Iran has a large population and can absorb damage; its regime, while hard-hit, might emerge even more hardline. If Iran’s nuclear program survives in some form or if Iran accelerates covert nuclear weapon assembly post-war, Israel might only delay, not eliminate, the threat. Additionally, Iran’s proven it can directly strike Israel – something that will haunt Israeli society. As one analyst put it, these attacks “harden Iranian resolve” more than weaken it. On the other hand, voices in Israel argue that failing to act would have been worse – better to incur damage now than to face a nuclear-armed Iran later. Some U.S. strategists worry the war could undermine America’s focus on other rivals (like Russia/China); others see an upside in Iran (a Russian ally) being weakened without U.S. troops in combat.

Given the information to date, a plausible outcome is: Israel achieves most of its tactical goals in a short war (Natanz permanently out of action, IRGC command shattered, missile threat significantly reduced), and Iran retaliates enough to claim symbolic victory but ultimately agrees to halt hostilities after a few weeks. The “victor” in that case would be Israel militarily, but both sides would pay steep prices. Israel would have improved its security for the next few years (no imminent Iranian nuke), whereas Iran would lick its wounds and likely shift strategy (maybe pursuing nukes more covertly, or focusing on asymmetric revenge over time). The region would remain on edge.

To encapsulate, if a full-scale war occurs or continues:

• Duration: Likely on the order of days to weeks of intense combat, unless expanded by new fronts. International pressure and material limits make a long war unlikely.

• Likely Victor: Israel, in conventional terms, due to superior military capabilities and U.S. support, is expected to prevail by severely degrading Iran’s offensive and nuclear capacities. Iran cannot militarily defeat or invade Israel; its best outcome is survival and causing enough Israeli pain to declare a moral victory. If judging victory by objectives: Israel’s objective (stop Iran’s nukes) would be largely met, whereas Iran’s objective (punish Israel enough to deter such attacks) is only partially met.

• Reasons: Israel’s technological edge, control of the air, precision strikes, and defense systems tilt the scales. Iran’s strengths (missile quantity, regional proxies) inflict damage but are being systematically countered and dwindling. U.S. aid further reinforces Israel’s advantages. Iran’s strategic depth and resilience mean it won’t capitulate, but it also likely cannot turn the tide militarily absent external intervention.

Finally, it’s crucial to acknowledge the broader impacts such a war will have on global stability:

• Global Economic Stability: Oil market volatility threatens to raise inflation internationally. A prolonged conflict or Hormuz disruption could trigger a worldwide energy crisis, with prices potentially topping $100/barrel and supply shortages in oil-importing regions. This would slow economic growth and complicate policymaking (many central banks would face a stagflation scenario).

• Geopolitical Realignments: Countries might rethink alliances – for example, Gulf Arab states might deepen security ties with the U.S. and Israel openly after seeing Iran’s aggression, or conversely might hedge and also engage more with China/Russia to secure guarantees.

• Non-Proliferation Regime: The war undermines the already frayed nuclear non-proliferation regime. If Iran was attacked despite being officially non-nuclear, other nations might conclude that only possessing a nuclear deterrent ensures security. This could embolden nuclear weapons aspirations in the Middle East and beyond, a troubling outcome.

• Global Security Focus: The conflict also diverts attention from other crises (like Ukraine). If the U.S. gets more entangled, resources might shift from Europe or Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, affecting NATO posture and U.S.-China dynamics. Russia and China may exploit the distraction to advance their interests elsewhere.

In conclusion, a full-scale Israel-Iran war – now a reality in 2025 – is likely to remain relatively brief and sharply fought, with Israel obtaining a military edge but at the cost of significant regional upheaval. The “victor” will depend on one’s perspective: Israel can claim victory if Iran’s nuclear program and military are crippled, whereas Iran will claim victory if its regime endures and it emerges unbowed in pursuing its long-term goals. The immediate outcome appears to favor Israel’s objectives, but whether this translates to lasting security is an open question. What is certain is that the war’s ramifications – human, political, and economic – will be profound for Israel, Iran, the Middle East region, and the world.

Global Economic Effects and Broader Geopolitical Stability

A conflict of this magnitude between Israel and Iran does not occur in isolation; it has significant repercussions for the global economy and geopolitical stability:

• Oil and Energy Markets: The Middle East supplies a substantial portion of the world’s oil, and Iran in particular sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which about 21 million barrels of oil pass daily (roughly one-third of global seaborne oil). Even the possibility of war in this region has caused oil prices to jump. In the initial days, Brent crude oil spiked ~7%, reaching around $74.60 per barrel on June 16. This was a knee-jerk reaction to Israel’s “surprise attack” and fears of supply disruption. Prices have seesawed since, reflecting war developments and speculation about outcomes. If the conflict is contained and short, oil prices might retreat once confidence returns. However, if the war escalates or drags on, experts warn of much higher prices. Goldman Sachs analysts suggest a “worst-case scenario” where Hormuz is blocked could send oil well above $100/barrel. Already, Iran’s threats to possibly close the strait if fighting continues have been reported, though Tehran knows this would also choke off its own remaining oil exports (especially to China). Historically, even during the Iran–Iraq “Tanker War” in the 1980s, Hormuz was never fully closed – but that history provides only modest comfort. The current conflict has seen missiles flying over the Gulf and near shipping lanes. Insurers have hiked premiums for vessels in the Gulf, and some shippers are rerouting or delaying tankers, effectively tightening supply. Additionally, Iran’s own energy infrastructure has been a target: for example, Israeli strikes caused a blaze at Iran’s South Pars gas field, one of the world’s largest gas facilities. Any prolonged outage there can affect global LNG (liquefied natural gas) markets, since Iran supplies natural gas regionally (though sanctions have limited its global gas reach). Moreover, other Gulf producers are not immune – they fear being caught in crossfire. So far, no major disruption of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, UAE, or others has occurred, and OPEC has signaled it stands ready to increase production to calm markets if needed. But these assurances only go so far if actual supply is imperiled. If oil does sustain above $100, countries worldwide will feel the pain: higher fuel costs for transportation and manufacturing would feed into higher inflation globally. Oil-importing nations (Europe, Asia) would suffer increased import bills and potentially fuel shortages. Some countries might tap strategic oil reserves to stabilize prices. On the flip side, oil-producing countries outside the Middle East (like the U.S., Canada, Brazil) could benefit from higher prices in terms of revenue, but they’d also face pressure to ramp up output to compensate – something not done overnight.

• Global Financial Markets: The outbreak of fighting initially roiled equity markets, especially in Europe and Asia which are sensitive to Middle East stability. Stock indices fell sharply on June 13–14, though by June 16 some had stabilized on hopes that worst-case outcomes (like U.S.-Iran direct war) might be averted. Investors have been flocking to “safe haven” assets: gold prices have climbed (a typical trend in geopolitical crises), and major currencies like the U.S. dollar and Swiss franc have strengthened as traders seek stability. If the conflict widens, one can expect further volatility – sharp declines in airline and tourism stocks (already happening as flights are canceled), rising defense industry stocks, and potential stress in banking sectors if energy-exposed loans go bad. For instance, airlines in Asia and Europe are having to reroute flights (adding fuel costs) or cancel routes entirely, affecting their earnings. Insurance companies face payouts for any damages to shipping or assets in the conflict zone. There’s also a risk of global supply chain disruptions beyond oil: the Middle East is a crossroads for shipping (the Red Sea, Suez Canal, etc.). Thus far, major container shipping lines have not been targeted, but companies are evaluating contingency plans to avoid conflict zones, which could lengthen transit times. For example, some vessels might avoid the Persian Gulf entirely until tensions ease, which impacts trade for Gulf countries.

• Impact on Inflation and Growth: Many economies in 2024–2025 were poised to start recovering from pandemic-era and Ukraine-war-era inflation by cutting interest rates. A spike in oil and commodity prices now threatens to renew inflationary pressures. Central banks in the G7 and elsewhere may have to halt rate cuts or even hike again if energy prices surge and remain elevated. Higher inflation erodes consumer spending power and could tip fragile economies into recession. Europe, which relies partly on Middle Eastern oil and gas (though it cut Russian gas, making it more dependent on alternatives), is particularly vulnerable. Developing countries that subsidize fuel might see budget strains or face civil unrest if fuel prices rise at the pump. The conflict could shave off global GDP growth if uncertainty persists – one estimate from a financial institution suggested that a short $10 rise in oil prices, if sustained, knocks 0.1-0.2 percentage points off global growth. If it’s a $30 rise, the effect is larger and could push some regions into stagflation (low growth, high inflation).

• Broader Geopolitical Stability: The war’s outcome will influence global stability in multiple ways:

  • Shifting Alliances: Countries are choosing sides or adjusting stances. Russia and China have leaned toward Iran diplomatically, criticizing Israel’s actions, while Western nations back Israel. This could deepen the East-West divide. For example, if Russia steps up military-technical aid to Iran after the war (e.g., selling advanced air defenses like the S-400 or fighter jets to Iran to rebuild its military), that pits Russian support against Western interests in the region, reminiscent of Cold War patronage dynamics. China’s role is pivotal – it has strong trade ties with Iran (especially oil) but also with Israel and Gulf states. So far, Beijing has called for talks and may try to broker some peace to earn diplomatic capital. A successful Chinese mediation (even just a ceasefire arrangement) could enhance China’s image as a responsible great power. Conversely, if the U.S. is seen as too biased or slow to stop the conflict, it might lose some influence among Gulf partners who crave stability.

  • Nuclear Proliferation Risks: The conflict underscores to other nations the value (or peril) of nuclear deterrence. North Korea, for one, will note that Iran (non-nuclear) got attacked, whereas nuclear-armed states don’t face such threats – reinforcing Pyongyang’s commitment to its arsenal. Countries like Saudi Arabia or Turkey might quietly accelerate nuclear research (civilian programs that could be converted to military) as a hedge. The global non-proliferation regime (anchored by the NPT) could be weakened if nations feel the need to go nuclear for security. This is a serious global stability concern; more nuclear actors in a tense region increase the chance of a nuclear crisis down the line.

  • Terrorism and Radicalization: A war between Israel and a Muslim-majority country like Iran can inflame extremist narratives worldwide. Jihadist groups (even ones opposed to Shi’a Iran) might exploit the situation to recruit, citing “Crusaders and Zionists killing Muslims.” Already, propaganda from groups like al-Qaeda or ISIL is likely to capitalize on images of destruction in Gaza (from before) and now Tehran to call for attacks on Israeli, American, or Jewish targets globally. Western security agencies are on alert for lone-wolf terrorism or Iranian-backed terror (like potential IRGC or Hezbollah terror cells activating abroad). In the 1990s, for instance, Iran was accused of sponsoring attacks on Israeli/ Jewish targets in Argentina as revenge for Israeli actions. Similar risks exist now in a heightened form. An uptick in global terrorism could further destabilize regions far beyond the Middle East.

  • Refugee and Humanitarian Crises: If the conflict persisted or spread, refugee flows could become a major issue. Already, we see Iranians fleeing cities like Tehran out of fear. If the war hit harder or if internal strife in Iran grew, potentially thousands of Iranians could seek asylum in neighboring countries (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc.). Israel, too, if under heavy attack, might see some citizens temporarily evacuating (though most Israelis have shelter at home). Additionally, if Lebanon or Gaza became involved again, we might see new refugee movements into Jordan, Syria, or Egypt. An increase in displaced populations strains humanitarian systems and can create instability in host countries. International aid organizations are preparing for scenarios ranging from mass casualty management in Iran to supporting basic needs if power/water systems collapse in parts of Iran due to bombing.

  • Effect on Other Conflicts: The Israel-Iran war also reverberates in other conflict zones. In Ukraine, for example, some speculate that Russia might benefit from higher oil revenues (if prices spike) to fund its war, and that a distracted West might slow arms deliveries to Ukraine. Ukrainian officials have voiced concern that if the U.S. Congress is preoccupied with aiding Israel or if global attention shifts, their fight against Russia could suffer. Conversely, if Iran (which supplies drones to Russia) is preoccupied or weakened, Russia might lose some supply of Iranian drones or other aid – potentially affecting the Ukraine battlefield. In Asia, China is watching U.S. actions closely: if the U.S. gets bogged down, Beijing might calculate an opportunity in the Western Pacific. However, the U.S. Navy’s moves so far show it trying to balance commitments (e.g., sending only a portion of naval assets to the Gulf, keeping others in the Indo-Pacific).

  • Ideological Impact: The war feeds into the broader ideological contest between democracy and authoritarianism. Israel, a U.S.-aligned democracy (albeit with its internal issues), fighting Iran, an anti-West theocracy, plays into narratives on both sides. Authoritarian governments might use the conflict to justify crackdowns (“we need stability in face of war abroad”), while democratic societies debate the morality and limits of supporting military actions that lead to civilian harm. This can influence global public opinion about U.S. foreign policy, human rights (images of bombed cities always spark debates about international law), and the strength of international norms against aggression. If the war ends with what some perceive as Israel’s excessive use of force unpunished, it might embolden other states to think might makes right. Conversely, if international diplomacy manages to halt the war, it could reinvigorate faith in multilateral conflict resolution.

Biggest Unknown Factor

The biggest unknown is whether Iran’s regional proxies—especially Hezbollah—will fully enter the conflict and open a second front against Israel. Their decision hinges on internal calculations, Israeli deterrence, and potential appeals from Tehran if Iran’s position weakens further. A full-scale Hezbollah offensive could radically shift the scope, duration, and cost of the war, drawing in more regional actors and potentially the United States. Without that trigger, the conflict may remain contained and brief. But if it happens, all bets are off.

Conclusion

The Israel-Iran war of 2025 is a regional conflict with global ramifications. Economically, it risks an energy shock and feeds inflation just as the world was recovering, which can hamper growth and strain public finances. Geopolitically, it tests alliances and could reshape the Middle East’s balance of power, either deterring Iran and similar actors or driving them to more extreme measures. It also distracts from and potentially exacerbates other global security issues. The conflict underscores the interconnectedness of today’s world: a missile in the Middle East can affect gasoline prices in California and wheat prices in South Asia (Iran and the region also trade in other commodities). It is a reminder that broader geopolitical stability can be swiftly undermined by regional wars, and why major powers – even when at odds – have a shared interest in preventing escalation.

---

Sources: This report is based on authoritative, up-to-date sources as of June 18, 2025, including on-the-ground reporting from Al Jazeera, strategic analyses from the Institute for the Study of War, commentary from RAND Corporation experts, and official statements documented at the United Nations Security Council emergency session. These sources provide insight into both the kinetic military developments and the international political/economic responses shaping the conflict’s trajectory. All information has been cross-verified where possible, and conflicting viewpoints (for example, on the war’s potential duration or the domestic U.S. appetite for involvement) have been noted to present a balanced analysis. The situation remains fluid, and projections are subject to change with new developments.

---

Google Gemini “Deep Research” (paid)

The Precipice: An Assessment of the Israel-Iran Conflict and the Potential for Full-Scale War

Executive Summary

As of June 18, 2025, the long-simmering shadow war between the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran has erupted into direct, state-on-state military confrontation. This report provides a comprehensive strategic assessment of the conflict, addressing its trajectory, the likelihood of escalation into a full-scale war, and the potential outcomes. The analysis is based on a multi-source review of military, political, diplomatic, and economic intelligence.

The conflict was initiated on June 13, 2025, by Israel's "Operation Rising Lion," a large-scale, preemptive air campaign with the stated objectives of neutralizing Iran's nuclear program and decapitating its military and scientific leadership. This campaign has achieved significant tactical success, degrading key Iranian nuclear facilities, destroying a substantial portion of its missile arsenal, and eliminating numerous senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the armed forces. Iran's retaliation, while causing civilian casualties in Israel, has been progressively weakened and appears insufficient to deter or halt the Israeli offensive.

The probability of a full-scale war, defined as a conflict involving ground invasions and aiming for the total defeat of the opposing state, is highly unlikely. The primary deterrent is the Iranian regime's core objective of self-preservation; it recognizes that a conventional war against Israel and potentially the United States would be suicidal. However, the current state of a sustained and destructive

air war is the most probable status quo for the medium term. The single greatest risk for escalation to a full-scale conflict is a deliberate decision by the United States to intervene directly, a possibility President Donald Trump is actively considering.

The most likely outcome of the current conflict trajectory is a militarily victorious Israel that has severely set back Iran's nuclear program and degraded its conventional capabilities. The Iranian regime, however, is likely to survive, albeit weakened, humiliated, and facing significant internal pressure. This outcome will not bring lasting peace but will instead create a more volatile and dangerous Middle East, with a vengeful Iran potentially turning to more asymmetric tactics and a more determined, covert pursuit of nuclear weapons in the long term.

The decisive factor in this crisis is the United States. The Trump administration is pursuing a high-risk strategy of "coercion by proxy," using Israeli military action as leverage to force Iran into a diplomatic capitulation on the nuclear issue. This unorthodox approach cedes the strategic initiative to a regional partner, risks catastrophic miscalculation, and has already caused significant global economic volatility, primarily through the threat to oil supplies transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The future of the conflict, and indeed of regional stability, hinges on the unpredictable decisions made in Washington.

I. The State of Hostilities: From Shadow War to Direct Confrontation

For decades, the rivalry between Israel and Iran was characterized by proxy warfare, covert operations, and assassinations. As of June 2025, this "shadow war" has ended, replaced by direct and overt military hostilities between the two regional powers. This shift marks a new and perilous chapter in Middle Eastern security.

The Catalyst: Operation Rising Lion

On June 13, 2025, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a large-scale, preemptive military campaign codenamed "Operation Rising Lion". This operation represents a fundamental change in Israeli strategy, moving from containment and deterrence to direct degradation of the Iranian threat. The stated objectives of the campaign are maximalist and transformative. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the operation's purpose was to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival". More specifically, Israeli officials announced the goals were to target Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and, critically, to "decapitate" its military leadership.

The campaign's execution has been swift and widespread:

• June 13: The initial wave of attacks involved a coordinated assault by Israeli warplanes and drones, some of which were reportedly smuggled into Iran by intelligence services beforehand. Strikes were reported across Iran, hitting targets in and around the capital, Tehran, the primary nuclear enrichment site at Natanz, the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, and major missile bases near Tabriz and Kermanshah.

• June 14-15: Israel expanded its target set, striking Iran's energy industry, including oil depots, while continuing to hammer military and nuclear-related sites.

• June 16-18: By the sixth day of the conflict, Israeli missile barrages on Tehran continued, with new targets including centrifuge production facilities, weapons research centers like the IRGC's Imam Hossein University, and other military installations. The IDF claimed it was "operating freely" in Iranian skies, a testament to the successful suppression of Iran's air defenses.

This offensive is not a single retaliatory strike but a planned, multi-day campaign designed to systematically dismantle Iran's strategic assets. The selection of targets—from nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders to missile launchers and production facilities—demonstrates a comprehensive strategy aimed at inflicting long-term damage on Iran's capacity to wage war and develop a nuclear weapon.

Iran's Retaliatory Campaign and Its Limits

In response to Operation Rising Lion, Iran initiated a retaliatory campaign, launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli territory. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has utilized various systems, including long-range Sejjil missiles, targeting major Israeli population centers such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, Bat Yam, and Petah Tikva.

However, Iran's ability to mount an effective response has been severely constrained by the effectiveness of the Israeli offensive. The retaliation has been significantly less potent than planned. According to members of the IRGC, Iran's original plan called for the launch of up to 1,000 ballistic missiles. This massive barrage was thwarted by Israel's successful initial strikes, which destroyed and damaged missile launchers, underground silos, and command-and-control infrastructure before they could be used.

The degradation of Iran's retaliatory capability is evident in the declining rate of fire. After launching six waves of attacks with approximately 200 missiles in the first two days, the frequency and volume of launches have dropped sharply. This indicates that Israel's strategy of concurrently striking primary targets while suppressing Iran's ability to respond has been highly effective. Iran is caught in a reactive posture, its primary offensive weapon system being systematically dismantled even as it attempts to use it.

The Human and Material Cost

The direct confrontation has inflicted significant casualties and damage on both sides, with civilians bearing a heavy price.

• In Iran: As of June 16, Iranian authorities reported at least 224 people killed, a figure that includes 74 women and children, with an additional 1,800 injured. While the civilian status of all casualties remains unconfirmed, attacks on urban areas like Tajrish Square in Tehran have resulted in confirmed civilian deaths. The material damage is extensive. Key nuclear infrastructure has been hit, with the IAEA confirming the destruction of the above-ground Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz and damage to the Isfahan uranium conversion facility. Israeli strikes have also targeted economic assets, including the Shahran oil depot near Tehran, and civilian infrastructure like the state television headquarters.

• In Israel: Iranian missile attacks have killed at least 24 people, all stated to be civilians by Israeli authorities, and injured nearly 600. The deadliest single attack occurred in Bat Yam, south of Tel Aviv, where a missile strike killed eight people, including three children.

The nature of the conflict is fundamentally asymmetric. Israel is executing a methodical, strategic campaign to achieve clear military objectives. In contrast, Iran is engaged in a reactive and increasingly constrained punitive campaign. This dynamic heavily favors Israel and places the Iranian regime in a deteriorating strategic position, where its ability to influence the course of the war diminishes with each passing day.

II. The Belligerents: Strategic Calculus and Domestic Imperatives

Understanding the motivations, capabilities, and constraints of Israel and Iran is essential to forecasting the conflict's trajectory. The war is not merely a clash of armies but of deeply entrenched worldviews, political necessities, and strategic doctrines.

Israel's Position: The Netanyahu Doctrine

The decision to launch Operation Rising Lion is the culmination of decades of policy driven by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the Iranian nuclear program represents the paramount threat to Israel's existence.

• Existential Threat Perception: The core justification for the war is Israel's assessment that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials have repeatedly framed the strikes as a "preemptive" necessity, stating that Iran was "closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon". This "red line" argument has been a cornerstone of Netanyahu's rhetoric for years and now serves as the primary

  casus belli. This assessment, however, stands in stark contrast to the official position of the U.S. intelligence community, whose director has testified that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a weaponization program. This divergence in intelligence assessments between the two close allies is a critical point of friction and a source of significant strategic risk.

• Domestic Political Imperatives: The timing of the war cannot be divorced from Netanyahu's domestic political situation. His right-wing coalition government, formed in December 2022, is one of the most fractious in Israeli history, beset by internal divisions over contentious issues such as mandatory military service for the ultra-Orthodox community. Netanyahu's personal popularity plummeted following the intelligence and security failures of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. A decisive war against a major external foe serves as a powerful unifying force, rallying the public and legislature around the flag. Far-right coalition partners like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have argued that bringing down the government during wartime would pose an "existential danger" to Israel, effectively insulating the coalition from collapse.

• Strategic End-State: Regime Change: Beyond the immediate goal of degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities, there are strong indications that Israel's strategic objective may be far more ambitious. Netanyahu has publicly mused that regime change in Tehran "could certainly be the result" of the conflict, asserting that the "Iranian regime is very weak". This suggests an ultimate goal that extends to fundamentally reordering the regional power structure by removing the Islamic Republic, an outcome that would necessitate a far broader and more intense conflict than a limited series of airstrikes.

Iran's Position: The Khamenei Conundrum

For Iran's 86-year-old Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the conflict presents an existential dilemma that pits revolutionary ideology against the pragmatic necessity of regime survival.

• Regime Survival as Paramount Goal: As the ultimate authority in Iran for over three decades, Khamenei's primary strategic objective is the preservation of the Islamic Republic. While he has issued defiant public statements, rejecting calls for surrender and warning the U.S. of "irreparable damage" should it intervene , his rule has been characterized by a principle of "heroic flexibility." This doctrine allows for tactical compromises and retreats when necessary to ensure the regime's long-term survival, a principle most notably demonstrated by his guarded endorsement of the 2015 nuclear deal to secure sanctions relief.

• Decapitation and Command Disruption: Israel's campaign has inflicted catastrophic damage on Iran's leadership. The confirmed killings of IRGC Commander General Hossein Salami, Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri, IRGC Aerospace Force Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and a host of other senior generals and key nuclear scientists represent a massive intelligence and security failure. This decapitation strategy has severely disrupted Iran's military command, control, and communications, hampering its ability to coordinate a coherent defense or an effective counter-offensive. The repeated success of Israeli intelligence in targeting Iran's most senior figures points to a systemic counterintelligence weakness within the regime.

• Internal Fragility: The Iranian regime is acutely aware of its vulnerability to domestic unrest. The leadership is deeply concerned that the national humiliation of the attacks and the government's perceived impotence could trigger a new wave of mass protests, similar to those seen in recent years. This fear is evidenced by the government's decision to temporarily limit internet access to prevent the organization of dissent. This internal pressure severely constrains Khamenei's strategic options. A full-scale war that Iran cannot win would likely lead to economic collapse and widespread suffering, creating the ideal conditions for a popular uprising that could topple the regime.

Comparative Military Analysis

The strategic calculations of both nations are fundamentally shaped by their relative military strengths and weaknesses. The conflict is not between equals; it is a clash between a technologically advanced military power and a larger but qualitatively inferior one that has long relied on asymmetric strategies.

Table 1: Comparative Military Capabilities (Israel vs. Iran, June 2025)

Category

Israel (IDF)

Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran Armed Forces)

Analysis

Total Personnel

~670,000 (170k Active, 465k Reserve)

~960,000 (610k Active, 350k Reserve)

Iran holds a significant numerical advantage in manpower. However, this is offset by the IDF's superior training, technology, and combat experience.

Defense Budget

~$24.4 Billion (2025 est.)

~$9.95 Billion (2025 est.)

Israel's defense expenditure is more than double Iran's, enabling sustained investment in high-tech research, development, and procurement from the U.S..

Air Force

Qualitative & Quantitative Superiority. ~612 total aircraft. Includes 39 F-35 stealth fighters, 196 F-16s, and 75 F-15s, all advanced U.S.-supplied platforms.

Qualitatively Inferior. ~551 total aircraft. A mix of aging Russian and pre-1979 American jets (e.g., MiG-29, F-14) that are poorly maintained and technologically obsolete due to sanctions.

This is the decisive domain. Israel has established "full aerial superiority" over Iran. Iran's air force is not a credible threat, forcing its reliance on ballistic missiles.

Air Defense

Multi-layered & Advanced. A sophisticated, integrated system including Iron Dome (short-range), David's Sling (medium-range), and Arrow 2/3 (long-range ballistic missile defense). Heavily supported by U.S. technology and direct deployment of U.S. THAAD batteries.

Mixed & Degraded. A combination of Russian-made systems (e.g., S-300) and indigenous designs. Israeli strikes have systematically targeted and weakened these systems, including key early-warning radar installations, creating corridors for attack.

Israel's advanced air defense effectively mitigates the threat from Iran's primary offensive weapon. Iran's defenses have proven incapable of preventing Israeli aircraft from operating with near-impunity over its territory.

Missile Arsenal

Advanced & Long-Range. Possesses strategic assets like the Jericho-3 missile, with ranges reportedly up to 6,500 km, capable of carrying various payloads. Focus is on precision and strategic deterrence.

Large but Vulnerable. An estimated stockpile of 2,000-3,000 ballistic missiles (e.g., Emad, Fattah, Sejjil) with ranges sufficient to reach Israel (up to 2,500 km). Production capacity is estimated at ~50 per month. This arsenal is being actively targeted and degraded.

The missile force is Iran's main strategic weapon, but its effectiveness is limited by Israeli air defenses and direct attacks on its launchers, storage sites, and production facilities.

Nuclear Status

Undeclared Nuclear Power. It is widely believed that Israel possesses an operational arsenal of 80-400 nuclear warheads, providing the ultimate deterrent.

Nuclear Threshold State. Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. However, the IAEA confirms it has a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity sufficient for approximately nine nuclear weapons if enriched further to weapons-grade (90%). The "breakout time" to produce this material is near zero, but weaponization would take an estimated 1-2 years.

This gap between fissile material production and weaponization is the critical window Israel is acting to close permanently.

Special Capabilities

Intelligence Dominance (Mossad). Has demonstrated a remarkable ability to operate freely inside Iran, targeting and assassinating top leaders and scientists with precision.

Advanced Cyber Warfare.

Asymmetric Warfare. Historically relied on a network of regional proxies (the "Axis of Resistance"), which has been significantly degraded (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas). Possesses a large and proven domestic drone (UAV) program (e.g., Shahed).

Cyber Warfare capabilities have been used for disruptive attacks.

Israel's intelligence superiority is a decisive, force-multiplying advantage that enables its decapitation strategy. Iran's primary asymmetric tool, its proxy network, has been weakened, leaving it more isolated.

The confrontation is not simply a military battle; it is a clash between two irreconcilable strategic philosophies. Israel is leveraging its technological and qualitative dominance to pursue a strategy of compellence—using overwhelming force to compel a change in Iran's behavior or its very system of government. This is a high-risk, high-reward approach rooted in the confidence of its military superiority.

Conversely, Iran has long pursued a strategy of deterrence based on attrition, ideological resilience, and asymmetry. This involved building a large but less sophisticated missile arsenal to hold Israeli cities at risk and cultivating a network of regional proxies to create a multi-front threat. The current conflict demonstrates the catastrophic failure of this deterrent strategy. Israel has called Iran's bluff. With its proxy network degraded and its missile arsenal being systematically destroyed, the Iranian regime is facing a profound strategic crisis. Its long-held doctrine has been breached, proving ineffective against a direct, technologically superior assault. This reality forces Ayatollah Khamenei into a desperate position where his only remaining options are defiance in the hope of outlasting the campaign, or a humiliating capitulation.

III. The American Dimension: The Unpredictable Fulcrum

The role of the United States in the Israel-Iran conflict is the single most important and unpredictable variable. The Trump administration is not a neutral bystander or a potential mediator but an active participant pursuing a high-risk strategy that is shaping the conflict's every turn.

A Policy of Strategic Ambiguity and Coercion

The Trump administration's public posture is a masterclass in strategic contradiction, seemingly designed to keep all parties off-balance. President Trump has simultaneously:

• Claimed to seek a diplomatic deal: He has stated his hope that "Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal," potentially "soon".

• Denied US involvement: Both Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have insisted that the U.S. "had nothing to do with the attack on Iran".

• Praised Israeli strikes: Trump has described the Israeli attacks as "excellent" and "very successful".

• Issued maximalist demands: He has called for Iran's "unconditional surrender" and warned that his patience is "wearing thin".

This vacillation between restraint and intervention is deliberate. At one point, the White House reportedly vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Supreme Leader Khamenei, fearing it would cause uncontrollable escalation. Yet, Trump has also told reporters that "it's possible that you're going to have to fight for them not to have nuclear" weapons. This calculated ambiguity creates an environment of extreme uncertainty, which the administration appears to be using as a coercive tool.

The "Green Light" and US Complicity

Despite official denials, the evidence of American complicity in Operation Rising Lion is substantial. This is not a case of Israel acting unilaterally against U.S. wishes.

• Material Support: Just three days before Israel launched its campaign, the United States quietly delivered a shipment of hundreds of Hellfire missiles to the Netanyahu government, providing critical munitions for the impending operation.

• High-Level Coordination: Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly stated that Israel and the United States are "fully coordinated" on the matter. President Trump himself has undermined his own administration's denials, revealing to reporters that he "knew everything, and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death" and that he "always knew the date" of the strikes.

This pattern suggests a "wink and a nod" strategy, a form of coercion by proxy. Washington has effectively given Israel a "green light" to act as the military enforcer, inflicting damage on Iran to create leverage for a diplomatic outcome favorable to the U.S.. This allows the White House to maintain a veneer of plausible deniability and avoid direct military commitment while still driving the crisis toward its preferred end-state.

The Fordow Decision Point: To Intervene or Not?

The central, unresolved question for the Trump administration is whether to commit U.S. forces to the conflict directly. This decision revolves around one specific target: the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.

Buried deep inside a mountain near the city of Qom, Fordow is Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear facility. It is widely believed that Israel, despite its advanced air force, lacks the specific munitions required to destroy this hardened target. The only weapon capable of doing so is the American GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bomb that can only be delivered by a U.S. B-2 stealth bomber.

Therefore, direct U.S. military participation is the key to achieving Israel's maximalist goal of completely eliminating Iran's nuclear program. This decision is the subject of intense debate within the White House and among Trump's allies. Hawkish figures like Senator Lindsey Graham advocate for "going all in" and providing Israel with whatever it needs, including direct air support. Conversely, a non-interventionist wing, including Senator Rand Paul and influential media personalities like Tucker Carlson, warns that direct involvement would drag the U.S. into another disastrous and endless war in the Middle East.

President Trump has cultivated this uncertainty, stating, "I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do". In the meantime, the U.S. has bolstered its military posture in the region, moving additional warplanes and warships into position, signaling to Iran that the threat of intervention is credible.

Domestic Political Constraints

President Trump does not operate in a political vacuum. His freedom to act is constrained by growing opposition at home.

• A rare bipartisan coalition is forming in the U.S. Congress, uniting progressive Democrats with libertarian-leaning Republicans. This group is attempting to reassert Congress's constitutional authority to declare war by forcing a vote on a resolution that would require congressional approval for military action against Iran.

• Even more significantly, the issue has created a rare fracture within Trump's own political base. Key media allies and influencers who are typically staunch supporters are publicly breaking with him, arguing that backing Israel in this conflict betrays his "America First" promise to avoid foreign entanglements. Recent polling indicates that 60% of the American public opposes U.S. military involvement in the conflict.

This domestic political landscape creates a powerful brake on any decision to commit U.S. forces, particularly to a ground war. Trump's unorthodox strategy can be seen as an attempt to navigate these constraints. By using Israeli military action as his primary tool of coercion, he aims to force Iran into a diplomatic settlement that he can brand as a major foreign policy victory, all without firing a single American shot or deploying troops. This approach, however, is fraught with peril. It cedes control over the tempo of a crisis with massive repercussions for U.S. interests to a third party. It risks a miscalculation by either side that could spiral into the very war the American public does not want, and it fundamentally damages the credibility of U.S. diplomacy by explicitly linking it to military aggression.

IV. Analysis: The Probability of Full-Scale War

The direct military exchanges between Israel and Iran have pushed the Middle East to the brink, raising the critical question of whether the conflict will escalate into a full-scale war. For the purposes of this analysis, a "full-scale war" is defined as a conflict involving sustained, reciprocal national-level military campaigns, potentially including ground force invasions, with the objective of achieving the total defeat of the opposing state's military and political structures.

Pathways to Escalation (Arguments FOR Full-Scale War)

Several pathways exist that could lead from the current state of a sustained air war to a full-scale regional conflagration.

• Deliberate U.S. Intervention: This remains the most direct and dangerous route to escalation. A decision by President Trump to authorize direct U.S. military action—specifically, using American bombers to destroy the hardened Fordow facility—would cross an unambiguous red line for Tehran. Iranian officials have explicitly warned that any U.S. intervention would risk "all-out war" and have readied ballistic missiles to strike U.S. bases throughout the region in response. Such an attack on U.S. forces would inevitably trigger a massive American retaliatory campaign, leading to a full-scale war.

• Israeli Calculation of Necessity: The Israeli leadership may conclude that its air campaign, while successful in degrading Iranian capabilities, is insufficient to guarantee the complete and permanent dismantlement of the nuclear program or to trigger the collapse of the regime. If Jerusalem believes its existential security requires a more definitive outcome, it could choose to escalate further, potentially with more expansive targets or even limited ground incursions, thereby accepting the risk of a wider war.

• Iranian Miscalculation or Desperation: If the Iranian regime perceives its own collapse as imminent, its strategic calculus could shift from survival to vengeance. In a desperate " Samson" option, a cornered leadership might launch a massive, last-ditch missile salvo against a high-value Israeli or American target—such as an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf or a catastrophic strike on a major population center. Such an act, resulting in mass casualties, would compel an overwhelming and escalatory response from the U.S. and Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei's defiant rejection of surrender keeps this high-impact, low-probability scenario on the table.

• The Logic of Regime Change: The stated willingness of Prime Minister Netanyahu to entertain regime change as a potential outcome of the conflict implies a readiness for full-scale war. Historically, regime change against a determined state actor is rarely, if ever, achieved through limited airstrikes alone. This objective logically requires a level of military commitment consistent with a full-scale conflict.

Factors Militating Against Escalation (Deterrents)

Despite these dangerous pathways, powerful deterrents are working to prevent the conflict from spiraling into a total war.

• Iran's Overriding Goal of Regime Survival: This is the single most powerful factor mitigating escalation. The clerical leadership in Tehran, while ideologically motivated, is pragmatic when it comes to its own survival. The regime is acutely aware that it is losing the current, limited conflict and that it stands no chance in a conventional war against the combined military might of Israel and the United States. For Khamenei, a full-scale war is the most certain path to his regime's destruction, either at the hands of foreign militaries or through a domestic uprising fueled by the war's devastation.

• Catastrophic Global Economic Consequences: A full-scale war would have devastating effects on the global economy. A central fear is that Iran would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world's oil supply transits. Even a temporary disruption would cause oil prices to skyrocket, with analysts projecting prices of $120 to $150 per barrel or higher. This would trigger a wave of global inflation, cripple supply chains, and likely precipitate a severe global recession. This outcome is dreaded by every major international actor, including the United States, its European allies, and Iran's primary oil customers like China.

• U.S. Domestic Opposition: As detailed previously, there is strong and growing political and public opposition within the United States to being drawn into another major war in the Middle East. This sentiment acts as a significant political brake on President Trump's willingness to commit American forces, particularly in a scenario involving ground troops.

• Lack of International Support: Israel and the United States are diplomatically isolated in this conflict. Key European allies, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have condemned the escalation and are urgently calling for a diplomatic resolution. Other major powers, notably Russia and China, have explicitly condemned Israel's attacks. This lack of international legitimacy raises the political cost of escalation and limits the potential for a broader coalition.

Probabilistic Assessment: A Definitive Answer

Based on the available evidence, a definitive assessment can be made.

A full-scale war, as defined by sustained ground invasions and total national mobilization, is highly unlikely.

The primary reason for this assessment is the asymmetry of stakes and capabilities. The Iranian regime's core interest is survival, and it correctly assesses that a full-scale war is a suicidal path. It is already losing the ongoing air war and has no viable strategy for victory in a wider conflict.

However, it is crucial to understand that the conflict has already escalated far beyond a limited strike. What is currently underway is an undeclared but active and highly destructive air war. The probability of this air war continuing and potentially intensifying in the coming weeks is high. Israel appears determined to achieve its objectives of degrading Iran's nuclear and missile programs, and Iran's ability to stop it is limited.

The most significant risk of miscalculation that could lead to a full-scale war remains the American decision regarding direct intervention. Should the United States join the strikes and attack Iranian territory, Iran's calculus could shift from self-preservation to a desperate, regime-ending act of retaliation against U.S. assets. This would, in turn, trigger a full-scale response from Washington.

Therefore, the definitive answer is twofold: No, there will not be a full-scale ground war unless the United States makes a deliberate decision to enter the conflict directly. The current state of a sustained and damaging air war is the most probable state of affairs to continue in the medium term.

V. Scenario Analysis: The Outcomes of War

Predicting the precise outcome of the ongoing conflict is contingent on a number of variables, most notably the extent of U.S. involvement. The following scenarios outline the most probable outcomes based on the current trajectory and potential escalatory pathways.

Scenario A: Contained Conflict / Sustained Air War (Most Likely Outcome)

This scenario represents the most probable future for the conflict, assuming no direct, overt U.S. military intervention with its own forces. It involves the continuation of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion" for several more weeks or months.

• Outcome for Israel: Israel achieves the majority of its primary military objectives. Its air campaign successfully degrades Iran's nuclear infrastructure, destroying above-ground facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, and causing significant damage to underground sites. Israel's multi-layered air defense systems continue to prove effective, keeping its own casualties and infrastructure damage to manageable levels. The decapitation campaign cripples the IRGC's command structure for years to come. Politically, Prime Minister Netanyahu's government is strengthened domestically in the short-term, having been seen to take decisive action against an existential threat.

• Outcome for Iran: The regime suffers a devastating military, economic, and psychological blow but ultimately survives. Its nuclear program is set back by several years, but the institutional knowledge and ambition remain, likely driving a future program deeper underground and making it more resilient. The regime is forced to turn inward, focusing its depleted resources on economic reconstruction and the suppression of popular dissent fueled by the national humiliation. Its regional influence and ability to project power through proxies like Hezbollah are significantly curtailed for the foreseeable future.

• Broader Outcome: The active phase of the war eventually de-escalates into a tense, unstable ceasefire or a long-term stalemate. The Middle East becomes a more dangerous and volatile region. A humiliated but surviving Iranian regime may turn to more covert and asymmetric tactics, such as terrorism or cyberattacks, to seek revenge in the long term. The global nuclear non-proliferation regime is severely damaged, as the conflict demonstrates that a state can be attacked for having a nuclear program, even without a declared weapon. This may incentivize other nations to pursue their own nuclear deterrents covertly and quickly.

Scenario B: Full-Scale War (Without Direct US Ground Intervention)

This scenario is triggered by a U.S. decision to join the air war, providing the bunker-busting bombs necessary to destroy the Fordow facility and participating directly in strikes against other strategic targets. In this scenario, Iran retaliates directly against U.S. bases in the region, triggering a full-scale air and naval war between the U.S./Israel and Iran, but without a major ground invasion.

• Outcome: This would lead to the comprehensive destruction of Iran's military, nuclear, and key economic infrastructure, including its ports, oil refineries, and power grid. The Iranian regime's ability to govern would likely collapse under the weight of such an assault, leading to a power vacuum. The cost to Israel would be significantly higher than in Scenario A, as a desperate Iran would launch its entire remaining missile arsenal, likely overwhelming air defenses in some instances and causing greater casualties. The global economy would enter a period of severe crisis due to the near-certain closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting spike in energy prices. The end-state of this scenario is a shattered, chaotic Iran, with no international consensus or plan for managing "the day after" the regime's fall.

Scenario C: Full-Scale War (With US Intervention and Regime Collapse)

This is the most destructive and least likely scenario, representing a catastrophic escalation. Following the events of Scenario B, the collapse of the Iranian state triggers a decision by the United States and its allies to intervene on the ground, either to secure loose nuclear materials, to prevent a spiraling humanitarian catastrophe, or to manage a full-blown civil war.

• Outcome: The result would be a strategic and humanitarian disaster that would dwarf the experiences of the West in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is a nation of over 90 million people with complex ethnic and sectarian fault lines. The collapse of its central government would trigger the largest refugee crisis in modern history, with analysts projecting that a Syrian-style outflow could result in over 20 million people fleeing into neighboring countries and toward Europe, causing massive regional and global destabilization. The power vacuum in Iran would likely be filled by a chaotic mix of competing warlords, jihadist groups, and ethnic militias. The United States and any coalition partners would find themselves bogged down in a multi-decade nation-building and counter-insurgency effort with no clear exit strategy or chance of success. This is the ultimate nightmare scenario that all rational actors, including military hawks in Washington, are seeking to avoid.

VI. Regional and Global Implications

The Israel-Iran war does not exist in a vacuum. Its shockwaves are reshaping the political, economic, and strategic landscape of the Middle East and beyond.

The Regional Power Balance

The conflict is accelerating a fundamental realignment of power and alliances in the region.

• Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE): The Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf are caught in an exceedingly difficult position. Publicly, they have unanimously condemned Israel's strikes, a necessary posture to appease their own populations and avoid becoming targets for Iranian retaliation. Privately, however, intelligence suggests they are "quietly applauding" the weakening of Iran, their primary strategic rival. Their greatest fear is regional destabilization that would threaten their ambitious economic diversification plans (such as Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030) and potentially draw them directly into the conflict, especially given that several Gulf states host major U.S. military bases that are potential Iranian targets. In the long term, they also harbor concerns about a decisive Israeli victory that would leave Israel as the unchallenged regional hegemon.

• Turkey: Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has adopted a staunchly pro-Iranian and virulently anti-Israeli stance. Erdogan has condemned Israel's actions as "state terrorism" and "genocide," explicitly backing Iran's right to self-defense. This rhetoric is part of an attempt to position Turkey as the new leader of the anti-Israel, pan-Islamic bloc, filling the power vacuum being left by a weakened Iran. Ankara also has direct security concerns, fearing the fallout from a collapsed Iran on its border, which could include massive refugee flows and the empowerment of Kurdish separatist groups.

• Hezbollah/Lebanon: Notably, Iran's most powerful proxy, Hezbollah, has remained largely silent and inactive throughout the crisis. The group's military capabilities were severely degraded in previous conflicts with Israel, and there appears to be little appetite within Lebanon for another devastating war. This silence underscores the degradation of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" and its diminished ability to project power through its regional network.

The war is effectively destroying the old political order of the Middle East. The outcome will be a new, more volatile landscape where power is contested between a militarily dominant Israel, a nervous but pragmatic Sunni bloc tacitly aligned with it against Iran, and a revisionist Turkey seeking to assert its own influence.

The Role of Russia and China

While both Russia and China have a vested interest in the region's stability, their ability to influence the current conflict is limited.

• Both Moscow and Beijing have officially condemned Israel's attacks and called for a diplomatic solution and de-escalation. They are using the crisis to criticize what they see as Western aggression and breaches of international law.

• Russia: President Vladimir Putin is attempting a delicate balancing act, trying to maintain his strategic partnership with Iran while also preserving functional relations with Israel. He has offered to mediate the conflict, a move likely intended to project an image of statesmanship to President Trump and potentially gain leverage in other arenas, such as the war in Ukraine. A short-term spike in oil prices benefits Russia's war economy, but the full-scale collapse of the Iranian regime would mean the loss of a key anti-Western ally.

• China: Beijing's primary concern is economic. As the largest buyer of Iranian oil and a major investor in the region through its Belt and Road Initiative, China's main interest is stability and the uninterrupted flow of energy. It will continue to call for restraint but will not risk a direct confrontation with the United States to defend Iran.

Ultimately, Russia and China are observers, not shapers, of this conflict. They are watching and learning from the international response but lack the military or diplomatic capacity to halt the Israeli campaign or protect their Iranian partner.

Global Economic Shock

The most immediate and far-reaching global implication of the war is economic. The conflict has already injected significant volatility into global markets, with oil prices jumping and stock markets falling in response to the initial strikes.

The primary risk revolves around the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most critical energy chokepoint. While a complete closure by Iran is unlikely—as it would also halt its own exports—even a partial disruption, attacks on tankers, or a spike in insurance premiums could have a dramatic effect on global energy supplies. Analysts predict that a significant disruption to shipping in the Strait could send oil prices soaring to between $120 and $150 per barrel.

A major and sustained oil price shock of this magnitude would trigger a global inflationary crisis. It would complicate the efforts of central banks to manage their economies, erode consumer purchasing power, and likely tip the world into a severe recession. This potential for catastrophic economic fallout serves as one of the most powerful deterrents against an escalation to a full-scale, region-wide war.

VII. Strategic Assessment and Conclusions

The direct military conflict between Israel and Iran that erupted in June 2025 represents a pivotal and dangerous moment for the Middle East and the international community. The shift from a decades-long shadow war to overt state-on-state hostilities has shattered the regional status quo and created a highly volatile and unpredictable strategic environment. This assessment synthesizes the preceding analysis to provide definitive conclusions on the conflict's trajectory and outcomes.

On the Question of Full-Scale War

A full-scale ground war between Israel and Iran is improbable. The primary restraining factor is the Iranian regime's fundamental instinct for self-preservation. Tehran's leadership recognizes its profound conventional military inferiority and understands that a total war against Israel, especially one involving the United States, would be suicidal and likely lead to the regime's collapse.

However, the current situation has already escalated far beyond a limited exchange. It is an active, sustained, and destructive air war, a state of affairs that is likely to continue in the medium term. The most significant risk of escalation to a full-scale conflagration hinges almost entirely on a single variable: a deliberate decision by the United States to intervene militarily. Should the U.S. join the air campaign, Iran's calculus could shift from preservation to a desperate, catastrophic retaliation against American assets, which would in turn trigger a full-scale U.S. military response.

On the Question of Outcome

The most probable outcome of the conflict, assuming it remains contained to an air war without direct U.S. intervention, is a decisive tactical and operational victory for Israel that results in a strategic stalemate and a more dangerous region.

• Israel will likely succeed in its primary objectives: its military will severely degrade Iran's nuclear program, setting it back by several years; it will cripple Iran's ballistic missile capabilities; and it will eliminate a generation of Iranian military and scientific leadership.

• The Iranian regime will likely survive, but in a severely weakened and humiliated state. It will be forced to focus inward on rebuilding and suppressing internal dissent.

• This outcome is not a victory for regional stability. The conflict will leave behind a more determined, vengeful Iran that is more likely to pursue its nuclear ambitions with greater secrecy and resolve in the long term. It will also damage the global non-proliferation regime and may incentivize other nations to seek nuclear weapons as the ultimate security guarantee.

The Decisive Factor

The central driver of this crisis is the unorthodox and high-risk foreign policy of the Trump administration. The strategy of "coercion by proxy"—using Israeli military action as a tool to create leverage for a U.S.-brokered diplomatic deal—is the conflict's defining feature. President Trump's calculated ambiguity and unpredictable decision-making process make the United States the decisive factor and the greatest source of risk for miscalculation and catastrophic escalation. The entire region's fate hangs on a strategy that prioritizes a personalized foreign policy victory over traditional alliance management and crisis stability.

Key Indicators to Monitor

To assess the future trajectory of the conflict, the following indicators should be monitored closely:

1. U.S. Rhetoric and Force Posture: Any shift in Washington's public statements from strategic ambiguity to a clear intent to strike Iranian targets, particularly the Fordow facility. Further deployments of strategic assets like B-2 bombers or aircraft carriers to the region would be a critical warning sign.

2. Iranian Command and Control: Evidence of fragmentation within the Iranian regime, a loss of control over its remaining missile forces, or signs of a large-scale domestic uprising could alter its strategic calculus toward more desperate measures.

3. The Strait of Hormuz: Any Iranian military action—such as laying mines or attacking commercial tankers—that directly impacts the free flow of shipping through the strait would signal a major escalation and would likely trigger an international response.

4. International Diplomatic Efforts: The level of seriousness and unity in any G7 or UN Security Council initiatives to broker a ceasefire. A concerted, high-level diplomatic push could provide an off-ramp, while a failure to mount a credible effort would leave the belligerents to their own devices.

Biggest Unknown Factor

The most significant unknown in predicting the next phase of the Israel-Iran conflict is the definitive course of action of the United States under the leadership of President Donald Trump. While Washington provides crucial support to Israel, the President’s public statements and strategic intentions remain deliberately ambiguous, creating profound uncertainty for both allies and adversaries. This calculated unpredictability leaves Israeli and Iranian leaders unable to determine the precise threshold for a full-scale American military intervention. Ultimately, whether the current hostilities escalate into a catastrophic regional war or are contained hinges more on the volatile and personal decision-making in Washington than on any other single factor.

---

Perplexity “Deep Research” (paid version)

Executive Summary

The Israel-Iran conflict has escalated significantly as of June 18, 2025, with six consecutive days of direct military exchanges following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and subsequent Iranian missile and drone counterattacks. International diplomatic efforts have proven ineffective at de-escalation, while regional economic impacts are already evident with oil prices spiking over 10% to $78/barrel and potential threats to global shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Based on current military dynamics, leadership calculations, and regional constraints, a full-scale war between Israel and Iran is highly probable (75-80% likelihood), with Israel likely to achieve military victory due to its technological superiority, established air dominance, and potential U.S. support, though complete elimination of Iran's nuclear program remains uncertain.

---

Israel-Iran Conflict Analysis: Assessment of Full-Scale War Prospects and Strategic Implications

Introduction

As of June 18, 2025, the Middle East stands at a critical juncture with Israel and Iran engaged in direct military confrontation for the sixth consecutive day1. What began as Israeli airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities on June 13, 2025, has escalated into sustained military exchanges between the two regional powers2. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the current conflict, examining the likelihood of full-scale war, potential outcomes, U.S. involvement, and broader regional implications. The assessment considers the political leadership dynamics under President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Current Conflict Status and Escalation Trajectory

Immediate Military Situation

The conflict, designated "Operation Rising Lion" by Israel and "Operation True Promise III" by Iran, represents the most significant direct military confrontation between the two nations in decades2. Israeli forces have conducted over 200 strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, military installations, and infrastructure13. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Israel has struck Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and centrifuge production sites in Tehran and Karaj1.

Iranian retaliation has included ballistic missile strikes and drone attacks against Israeli territory, with casualties mounting on both sides14. Human rights organizations report at least 585 Iranian deaths and 1,326 wounded, including 239 civilians5. The Israeli military has established air superiority over Iran and degraded significant portions of Iran's air defense systems4.

Strategic Military Capabilities Assessment

Israeli Military Advantages:

• Advanced air force with precision strike capabilities6

• Multi-layered missile defense systems including Iron Dome6

• Superior intelligence and surveillance capabilities7

• Technological superiority in electronic warfare and cyber operations7

Iranian Military Assets:

• Large ballistic missile arsenal with ranges exceeding 3,000 km89

• Advanced drone capabilities including hypersonic missiles like the Fattah-1 and Fattah-29

• Asymmetric warfare capabilities through proxy networks10

• Regional influence through the "Axis of Resistance"11

Assessment: Likelihood of Full-Scale War

High Probability Factors

Based on current evidence, a full-scale war between Israel and Iran appears highly likely for several critical reasons:

1. Strategic Objectives Remain Unachieved: Israeli strikes have damaged but not eliminated Iran's nuclear program, particularly the heavily fortified Fordow facility712. Military experts assess that Iran's nuclear capabilities remain largely intact despite significant infrastructure damage7.

2. Escalatory Momentum: Both nations have crossed previous red lines, with direct attacks on each other's sovereign territory becoming normalized13. The conflict has already sustained for six days with no clear de-escalation pathway.

3. Leadership Calculations: Netanyahu has declared the operation will continue "for as many days as it takes"2, while Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has rejected calls for surrender and warned of "irreparable consequences" for U.S. involvement15.

4. Limited Proxy Options: Iran's traditional proxy network has been significantly weakened, with Hezbollah largely disarmed and Hamas neutralized1113. This forces Iran toward direct confrontation rather than proxy warfare.

Constraining Factors

Several elements may limit the scope of escalation:

• International pressure for de-escalation from European allies, Arab states, and the UN141516

• Economic considerations, with the conflict already costing Israel $725 million to $1 billion daily17

• Regional stability concerns among Gulf Arab states hosting U.S. military bases16

War Duration and Likely Outcome

Projected Timeline: 3-6 Months

Military analysts suggest a full-scale conflict would likely last 3-6 months based on several factors:

Phase 1 (Current - 2 weeks): Continued airstrikes and missile exchanges focusing on strategic targets
Phase 2 (Weeks 2-8): Potential expansion to include energy infrastructure and deeper military targets
Phase 3 (Months 2-6): Sustained campaign requiring international intervention or decisive military victory

Probable Military Outcome: Israeli Victory with Significant Costs

Israel possesses decisive advantages that make military victory probable:

Israeli Victory Factors:

• Air superiority already established over Iran4

• Superior military technology and precision weapons6

• Strong defensive capabilities against Iranian missile attacks6

• Potential U.S. military support for critical operations1819

Limitations on Israeli Success:

• Inability to completely eliminate Iran's nuclear program without U.S. bunker-buster bombs7

• Geographic distance limiting sustained operations

• Risk of regional spillover involving other actors16

Iranian Constraints:

• Degraded air defenses and military command structure4

• Economic limitations from existing sanctions20

• Reduced proxy capabilities following recent conflicts1113

U.S. Involvement: Scope and Likelihood

Current U.S. Military Posture

The Trump administration has significantly increased military assets in the Middle East:

• Deployment of additional naval carrier strike groups, including USS Nimitz joining USS Carl Vinson21

• Surge of 30+ aerial refueling aircraft to Europe for potential Middle East operations21

• Enhanced force protection measures for U.S. personnel in the region18

Probable Forms of U.S. Involvement

Highly Likely (90% probability):

• Intelligence sharing and surveillance support2218

• Advanced weapons provision, including potential bunker-buster bombs187

• Diplomatic protection in international forums23

• Economic and sanctions support20

Moderately Likely (60-70% probability):

• Direct air support for specific high-value targets, particularly Fordow nuclear facility187

• Naval operations to protect shipping lanes through Strait of Hormuz24

• Cyber warfare operations against Iranian infrastructure8

Less Likely but Possible (30-40% probability):

• Large-scale ground force deployment

• Direct strikes on Iranian leadership targets25

President Trump's statements indicate internal deliberation, with his comment "I may do it, I may not do it" regarding direct U.S. strikes25. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the Pentagon has provided military options to Trump18.

Financial and Material Support

U.S. involvement will likely include:

• Continued military aid to Israel (currently over $3 billion annually)

• Emergency weapons transfers and munitions resupply

• Intelligence and surveillance asset sharing

• Potential supplemental funding through Congress

Regional and Global Implications

Middle East Regional Impact

Immediate Effects:

• Oil price volatility with Brent crude spiking over 10% to $78/barrel24

• Potential closure of Strait of Hormuz affecting 20-25% of global oil transit24

• Acceleration of regional military buildups and arms races

Arab State Responses:
Gulf Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and UAE, are actively pursuing de-escalation through diplomatic channels16. These nations face particular vulnerability due to hosting U.S. military bases that could become Iranian targets16. Despite historical rivalry with Iran, Arab states prefer regional stability for economic prosperity over regime change in Tehran16.

Turkish Positioning:
Turkey under President Erdoğan sees opportunities in Iran's weakened position while maintaining official condemnation of Israeli actions26. Ankara seeks to expand influence in Syria and the broader region as Iranian proxy networks weaken26.

Global Economic Consequences

Energy Markets:

• Goldman Sachs projects potential oil price spikes to over $90/barrel if Iranian exports are disrupted24

• Iran's 1.75 million barrels per day export capacity at risk24

• LNG shipments from Qatar and UAE through Persian Gulf threatened24

International Trade:

• Shipping insurance premiums increasing significantly24

• Potential supply chain disruptions affecting Asian markets24

• Flight route alterations increasing transportation costs

Nuclear Proliferation Implications

The conflict sets dangerous precedents for nuclear non-proliferation:

• Potential Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty15

• Acceleration of regional nuclear programs in response to perceived threats

• Undermining of international nuclear oversight mechanisms2715

International Response and Diplomatic Efforts

European Union Position

The E3 (UK, France, Germany) and EU leadership have called for immediate de-escalation while maintaining support for Israel's right to self-defense15. European nations emphasize diplomatic solutions and urge Iran's return to nuclear negotiations15.

United Nations Security Council

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar has justified the attacks under self-defense provisions, citing Iran's nuclear program and support for proxy attacks23. Iran has invoked its own self-defense rights in response to Israeli strikes23. The UN Secretary-General has called for maximum restraint and expressed particular concern over attacks on nuclear facilities during ongoing negotiations14.

Chinese and Russian Responses

Russia has condemned Israeli strikes as "categorically unacceptable" attacks on sovereign nations14. China and Russia's continued military cooperation with Iran, including joint naval exercises, suggests potential support for Tehran despite not directly intervening28.

Critical Risk Factors and Wild Card Scenarios

Escalation Triggers

High-Risk Scenarios:

• Iranian attacks on Israeli civilian population centers

• Israeli strikes on Iran's religious or political leadership

• Accidental targeting of third-country nationals or facilities

• Iranian attempts to close Strait of Hormuz

Regional Spillover Risks

• Activation of remaining Iranian proxy forces in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria

• Turkish military involvement to protect Syrian interests

• Hezbollah re-engagement despite weakened capabilities1113

• Palestinian militant group activation in West Bank

Conclusion and Strategic Assessment

Primary Findings

Based on comprehensive analysis of current military dynamics, political leadership calculations, and regional constraints, several conclusions emerge:

1. Full-scale war is highly probable (75-80% likelihood) given the sustained nature of current hostilities, unachieved strategic objectives, and leadership commitments on both sides127.

2. Israeli military victory is most likely outcome due to technological superiority, air dominance, and potential U.S. support, though complete elimination of Iran's nuclear program remains uncertain without direct U.S. involvement718.

3. Conflict duration of 3-6 months is probable, with potential for earlier resolution only through significant international diplomatic intervention or decisive military breakthrough1716.

4. U.S. involvement is virtually certain in intelligence, weapons, and diplomatic support, with 60-70% probability of limited direct military action, particularly regarding Iran's Fordow nuclear facility187.

5. Regional economic disruption is inevitable, with oil prices likely reaching $80-90/barrel and potential global recession risks if Strait of Hormuz is threatened24.

Strategic Implications for American Interests

The conflict presents significant challenges for U.S. foreign policy:

• Energy Security: Potential oil supply disruptions affecting global economy and domestic U.S. energy costs

• Nuclear Proliferation: Risk of accelerated regional nuclear programs and breakdown of international oversight

• Alliance Management: Balancing Israeli support with Arab ally concerns and European diplomatic preferences

• Resource Allocation: Military and financial commitments potentially diverting from other strategic priorities including China containment

Recommendations for U.S. Policy Approach

Given the high probability of full-scale conflict and its implications:

1. Maintain Strategic Ambiguity regarding direct military involvement while providing necessary intelligence and defensive support

2. Pursue Parallel Diplomatic Track through Arab state intermediaries and international partners to create off-ramps

3. Prepare Economic Contingencies including Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases and coordination with allied oil producers

4. Strengthen Regional Partnerships with Gulf Arab states to maintain access and influence regardless of conflict outcome

The Israel-Iran conflict represents a defining moment for Middle Eastern stability and U.S. strategic interests in the region. While Israeli military victory appears probable, the broader implications for nuclear proliferation, regional stability, and global economic security will require sustained American diplomatic and strategic engagement regardless of the immediate military outcome.

Biggest Unknown Factor

The biggest unknown in predicting the trajectory of the Israel-Iran conflict lies in Iran's remaining ballistic missile inventory and the unpredictable nature of escalation triggers that could rapidly transform the current confrontation into a regional conflagration[1][2]. While Israeli military intelligence estimates Iran has fired approximately 700 medium-range ballistic missiles, leaving potentially 300 to 1,300 remaining in its stockpile, these figures represent "at best a back-of-the-envelope calculation" according to defense experts[1]. The fluid nature of confrontation patterns between the two nations means that black swan events—such as accidental targeting of third-country nationals, Iranian strikes on Israeli civilian centers, or unexpected proxy activation—could instantly escalate the conflict beyond bilateral warfare into a multi-front regional war involving the United States and other powers[3][4]. Additionally, the internal deliberations within the Trump administration remain opaque, with conflicting signals about direct U.S. military involvement creating strategic uncertainty that both Israel and Iran must navigate while making critical escalation decisions[5][2].

---

Grok “Deep Research” (free version)

Research Report: Analysis of the Israel-Iran Conflict as of June 18, 2025

Executive Summary

As of June 18, 2025, the Israel-Iran conflict, marked by Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets and Iran's retaliatory missile and drone attacks, is a high-intensity aerial war but unlikely to escalate into a full-scale ground invasion due to strategic and domestic constraints. The conflict may persist for weeks or months as a stalemate, with Israel potentially delaying Iran's nuclear program by at least a year, though neither side is likely to achieve a decisive victory. The United States supports Israel with diplomatic and military aid but is hesitant to engage in direct combat, while the conflict risks regional destabilization, higher oil prices, and global security challenges. A full-scale war involving ground operations is improbable, and no clear winner is expected due to military asymmetries and limited strategic goals.

---

Introduction

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran as of June 18, 2025, addressing the potential for a full-scale war, its possible outcomes, U.S. involvement, and implications for the region and the world. The analysis draws on reliable sources, including news reports, expert analyses, and international perspectives, to offer an objective and detailed assessment for American citizens and voters. The report considers the political leadership in the United States (President Donald Trump, Republican), Israel (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud), and Iran (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), as these leaders shape the conflict’s trajectory.

Will There Be a Full-Scale War Between Israel and Iran?

The conflict, which began on June 13, 2025, with Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, is already a war characterized by intense aerial and missile exchanges. However, a “full-scale war” typically involves ground invasions and widespread mobilization, which appears unlikely at this stage due to strategic objectives and constraints.

• Current Conflict Dynamics:

  • Israeli Actions: Israel has conducted over 140 airstrikes, targeting nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz), missile production facilities, and military bases in Tehran and western Iran. These strikes aim to delay Iran’s nuclear program by at least one year (Atlantic Council).

  • Iranian Response: Iran has launched approximately 400 ballistic missiles and 1,000 drones, hitting civilian and military targets in Israel, including Tel Aviv and Bat Yam. Casualties include over 200 in Iran and at least 24 in Israel (CNN).

  • Conflict Intensity: The conflict, now in its sixth day, is described as a “threshold war,” where Israel seeks to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability, creating an unstable escalation spiral (The Conversation).

• Likelihood of Ground War:

  • No Ground Troop Indications: There are no reports of ground troop movements or preparations for invasion by either side. Israel’s strategy focuses on precision airstrikes, while Iran relies on long-range missiles (Institute for the Study of War).

  • Israeli Objectives: Israel aims to degrade Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, not occupy its territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu has suggested regime change as a possible outcome but not a primary goal (Reuters).

  • Iranian Constraints: Iran’s domestic challenges, including public anger over civilian casualties and lack of warnings, may limit its ability to escalate to ground operations (Atlantic Council).

• Factors Preventing Escalation:

  • U.S. Reluctance: President Trump’s hesitation to commit U.S. forces directly reduces the likelihood of a broader war (New York Times).

  • Diplomatic Efforts: G7 leaders and the UN Secretary-General are urging restraint, though Iran has rejected ceasefire talks while under attack (Reuters).

  • Domestic Pressures: In Iran, public opposition to war and desire for democratic change could constrain escalation (Atlantic Council).

• Escalation Risks:

  • Iranian Retaliation: Iran’s Supreme Leader has warned of “irreparable damage” if the U.S. intervenes, suggesting potential for wider conflict (CNN).

  • Regional Actors: Involvement of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah could broaden the conflict.

  • Nuclear Escalation: Strikes on nuclear sites increase proliferation risks, potentially pushing Iran toward a nuclear breakout (The Conversation).

Conclusion: While the conflict is a war, a full-scale ground war is unlikely. It may continue as a prolonged aerial and missile-based conflict, with both sides avoiding ground invasions due to strategic and domestic constraints.

How Long Will It Last, and Who Will Win, and Why?

Given the unlikelihood of a ground war, this section analyzes the duration and outcome of the current aerial and missile conflict. The most probable scenario is a prolonged stalemate, with Israel achieving strategic gains but no decisive victor.

• Duration:

  • Prolonged Conflict: The conflict could last weeks to months, as both sides have significant munitions stockpiles. Israel’s sustained airstrikes and Iran’s missile barrages suggest neither side is nearing exhaustion (Al Jazeera).

  • Diplomatic Resolution: A ceasefire could shorten the conflict, but Iran’s rejection of talks and Israel’s ongoing operations make this unlikely in the short term (Reuters).

  • Domestic Factors: Public pressure in Iran could push for de-escalation, potentially shortening the conflict, while Israel’s public support for strikes may prolong it (Atlantic Council).

• Potential Outcomes:

  • Stalemate:

    • Both sides have demonstrated resilience. Israel’s advanced air force and Iran’s missile arsenal allow sustained operations without a clear winner (RAND).

    • This is the most likely outcome, as neither side can achieve a decisive military victory without significant escalation.

  • Israeli Strategic Victory:

    • Israel’s goal is to delay Iran’s nuclear program by at least one year. Strikes on Fordow and Natanz have damaged enrichment capabilities, potentially achieving this objective (Institute for the Study of War).

    • However, Iran’s nuclear knowledge is irreversible, and rebuilding efforts could resume (Atlantic Council).

  • Iranian Resilience:

    • Iran’s ability to launch hundreds of missiles demonstrates its retaliatory capacity, bolstering domestic credibility despite losses (CBS News).

    • Iran could claim a moral victory by withstanding Israeli attacks and inflicting damage on Israel.

  • De-escalation:

    • Diplomatic efforts or mutual exhaustion could lead to a pause, though current rhetoric suggests this is unlikely soon (Reuters).

• Why No Decisive Winner?:

  • Military Asymmetry: Israel’s technological superiority in air defenses and precision strikes contrasts with Iran’s numerical advantage in missiles, balancing the conflict (Foreign Affairs).

  • Strategic Goals: Israel seeks to delay, not destroy, Iran’s nuclear program, while Iran aims to deter further attacks, neither requiring total victory.

  • External Constraints: U.S. reluctance and international pressure limit escalation (New York Times).

Conclusion: The conflict is likely to persist for weeks or months as a stalemate, with Israel potentially delaying Iran’s nuclear program but no clear winner due to military and strategic constraints.

Is and Will America Be Involved? If So, How?

The United States is already involved diplomatically and militarily in supporting Israel, but direct combat involvement remains uncertain under President Trump’s leadership.

• Current U.S. Involvement:

  • Diplomatic Support: The U.S. has condemned Iran’s actions and affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense. Trump’s call for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” reflects strong rhetorical support (New York Times).

  • Military Assistance: The U.S. has deployed tankers (KC-135/KC-46), extended the USS Harry S. Truman, moved the USS Carl Vinson, and repositioned the USS Thomas Hudner to bolster Israel’s air defenses (Atlantic Council).

  • Evacuation Measures: Partial evacuation of U.S. embassy personnel from Israel indicates preparation for escalation (CNN).

  • Diplomatic Efforts: Participation in G7 talks calling for restraint shows U.S. involvement in de-escalation efforts (Reuters).

• Potential Future Involvement:

  • Air Strikes: The U.S. could conduct airstrikes on Iranian nuclear or military targets, particularly if Israel’s efforts falter. Trump is reportedly considering this option (CNN).

  • Naval Blockade: A blockade to disrupt Iran’s oil exports or arms imports is possible but would escalate tensions significantly.

  • Ground Troops: Deployment of U.S. ground forces is highly unlikely, given Trump’s campaign focus on avoiding foreign wars (New York Times).

  • Financial Support: The U.S. is likely to continue providing financial and military aid to Israel, including munitions and intelligence support.

  • Sanctions: Increased economic sanctions on Iran could be imposed to pressure its regime.

• Factors Influencing U.S. Involvement:

  • Domestic Politics: Trump faces pressure from his base to support Israel, but GOP lawmakers are divided, with some opposing direct involvement (CNN).

  • Strategic Interests: Preventing Iran’s nuclear advancement and maintaining regional stability are key U.S. goals, but direct intervention risks broader conflict.

  • Iran’s Actions: Direct attacks on U.S. interests, such as bases or ships, could force U.S. military action (CNN).

• Table: U.S. Involvement Scenarios:

  Scenario Likelihood Description Continued Support High Ongoing diplomatic, financial, and military aid to Israel without combat. Airstrikes Medium Targeted strikes on Iranian targets if conflict escalates or Israel requests. Naval Blockade Low Blockade to disrupt Iran’s trade, risking significant escalation. Ground Troops Very Low Deployment of U.S. troops, unlikely due to Trump’s policy stance.

Conclusion: The U.S. is involved through diplomatic and military support to Israel but is unlikely to engage in direct combat unless Iran threatens U.S. interests directly. Continued aid and potential airstrikes are the most likely forms of involvement.

What Will Be the Outcome for the Region and the Rest of the World?

The Israel-Iran conflict has profound implications for the Middle East and global stability, affecting security, economies, and diplomacy.

• Regional Impact:

  • Destabilization: The conflict risks escalating tensions between Sunni and Shia states, with Iran’s proxies (e.g., Hezbollah) potentially intensifying attacks on Israel and its allies (Foreign Affairs).

  • Proxy Conflicts: Ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon could worsen as Iran redirects resources to counter Israel.

  • Refugee Crisis: Civilians fleeing Tehran and other targeted areas could strain neighboring countries like Armenia and the UAE (CNN).

  • Economic Disruption: Damage to Iranian energy infrastructure could affect regional trade, though oil production sites remain untouched (Atlantic Council).

• Global Impact:

  • Oil Prices: The conflict has increased oil prices due to geopolitical risks. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could push Brent crude to $120–$130 per barrel, impacting global economies (Atlantic Council).

  • Nuclear Proliferation: Strikes on nuclear sites may accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, increasing proliferation risks. The IAEA has declared Iran non-compliant with the NPT (Reuters).

  • Diplomatic Tensions: U.S.-Iran relations are strained, complicating future negotiations. China and Russia’s calls for de-escalation contrast with U.S. support for Israel (Reuters).

  • Global Security: Increased instability could lead to terrorism, cyberattacks, or disruptions in global trade.

• Long-Term Implications:

  • Regime Change: Israel’s targeting of government infrastructure suggests a goal of weakening Iran’s regime, though achieving this militarily is uncertain (Reuters).

  • Power Dynamics: A weakened Iran could shift regional power toward Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, altering alliances.

  • Global Economy: Prolonged conflict could exacerbate stagflation risks, especially if combined with U.S. tariff policies (Atlantic Council).

• Table: Regional and Global Impacts:

  Impact Area Regional Effects Global Effects Security Proxy conflicts, Hezbollah escalation Increased terrorism, cyberattacks Economy Trade disruption, energy infrastructure damage Oil price spikes, stagflation risks Diplomacy Sunni-Shia tensions Strained U.S.-Iran relations, global divisions Humanitarian Refugee crisis, civilian casualties International aid demands

Conclusion: The conflict risks regional destabilization, economic disruption, and global security challenges. Long-term outcomes depend on the conflict’s duration and international responses.

Biggest Unknown Factor

The biggest unknown in predicting the next phase of the Israel-Iran conflict as of June 18, 2025, is the extent to which Iranian domestic pressures and public unrest will influence the regime’s response to ongoing Israeli airstrikes. Iran’s Supreme Leader faces growing internal dissent due to civilian casualties and economic strain, which could either constrain escalation or push the regime toward more aggressive retaliation to bolster domestic credibility. This uncertainty is compounded by the lack of clear signals on whether Iran’s proxies, such as Hezbollah, will intensify regional attacks, potentially broadening the conflict. The interplay of these internal and external factors makes it challenging to forecast whether Iran will pursue de-escalation or risk further confrontation.

Conclusion

The Israel-Iran conflict as of June 18, 2025, is a war of aerial and missile exchanges, unlikely to escalate into a full-scale ground war due to strategic and domestic constraints. It may persist as a stalemate, with Israel potentially delaying Iran’s nuclear program but no decisive victor. The U.S. supports Israel diplomatically and militarily but is hesitant to engage in direct combat. The conflict poses significant risks to regional stability, global economies, and security, with potential for higher oil prices, nuclear proliferation, and broader instability. Diplomatic efforts and domestic pressures may shape the conflict’s trajectory, but the situation remains volatile.

---

My Final Thoughts

This isn’t an easy topic, and honestly, I wish it wasn’t playing out like this in real time. But I thought it was worth seeing how three of the top AI platforms would respond, just to get a few different perspectives.

Did anything surprise you, frustrate you, or hit differently? Let me know what landed, and what didn’t. I’m listening.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links

---

This post is free, but building a future rooted in truth and democracy takes real investment. If my work speaks to you, subscribe and if you can, chip in $5/month or $50/year—because independent journalism that actually gives a damn (and delivers ideas you can use today) is worth backing.

---