Washington: US media outlets are increasingly filled with stories and op-ed columns drawing comparisons to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, hailing a series of victories by Israel. These narratives often portray Israel, a small state, as having launched attacks on Iran, a country of 92 million, targeting its top leadership and nuclear scientists. In the context of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign in Gaza, these Israeli strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a courageous war cry in a battle against a regime in Tehran.
According to TRTworld.com, Israel, unlike other states in the region, has nuclear weapons, receives weaponry from Washington, and is shielded by American air defenses. Should the US formally enter this ongoing war, the consequences could be destabilizing. If the US were to intervene, Iran’s regional allies in its Axis of Resistance, a coalition of Shia forces from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah, might be reactivated to stretch US capacity across multiple fronts.
What began as a shadow war is evolving into a confrontation with no clear exit but with immense risks of regional implosion. Though Iran is currently fending off Israeli attacks, direct US involvement could cause Tehran to gradually lose ground, says Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst. He argues that Israeli strikes so far appear more effective than Iran’s responses. Still, Markov notes uncertainty surrounds the conflict, not least because of the improbability of a US ground invasion and the unpredictable reaction of Iranian society.
Matthew Bryza, a former US diplomat, doubts that President Trump would order a full-scale ground invasion of Iran. He envisions a more limited operation: targeted strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility using bunker-buster bombs, paired with logistical support for Israeli air campaigns. Trump hopes that after such attacks, the war would be over. If Israel and the US were able to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, we would see a more stable Middle East with a lower risk of nuclear catastrophe.
But not all experts share this optimism. Nuclear analysts warn that bombing Fordow alone might not substantially delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Thousands of Iranian scientists could continue advancing the program, despite setbacks. Military action is unlikely to be so definitive, wrote James Acton, a director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
If military operations fail to bring down the Iranian leadership, short of a new Iranian revolution, enormous tension could follow US-Israel strikes, says Bryza. If the current clerical regime remains, it can take measures like blocking the Strait of Hormuz and resorting to hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets in the Middle East. If such escalations lead to Iranian attacks on US military bases, Washington could be drawn into deeper involvement, a move Bryza describes as a huge mistake.
Krieg concurs that surrender or disarmament is unlikely. The Islamic Republic’s core identity is shaped by resistance and survival under siege. If it perceives an existential threat, the regime may escalate drastically, including asymmetric attacks on US forces, strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure. Iran’s leadership understands that national collapse would unleash chaos, and they would rather escalate than submit.
In a world already rattled by war in Ukraine and Gaza, a new conflict in Iran would have far-reaching effects. Krieg warns that a US-led strike could trigger a global oil shock, especially if Iran attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Financial markets would be rattled by geopolitical instability. A wider war could disrupt global supply chains and empower actors like Russia and China.
Domestically, Trump’s Iran war ambitions are sowing discord within his own base. Pro-Trump figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have questioned the wisdom of war with Iran, revealing a rift between interventionists and anti-war conservatives. Beyond strengthening US rivals like China and Russia, such a conflict would undermine Trump’s America First vision.
Bryza echoes this concern. A war with Iran could provoke a severe political backlash among Trump’s supporters, many of whom are anti-interventionist, which could cause a political liability for Trump and the Republican Party. Still, Trump may not be deterred. Knowing he cannot run for a third term, he may believe his base will follow him regardless. But if an Iranian missile strike were to kill over a hundred American soldiers at a US base, warns Markov, it could ignite a major public backlash, one that even Trump may not be able to contain.