Iran–Israel Scenarios Ahead

Iran–Israel: Scenarios Ahead

From Controlled Confrontation to the Spark of a Global War

Introduction: New Flames in the Ancient Core of the Middle East

In recent days, the Middle East has once again witnessed the flare-up of one of its oldest and most complex confrontations. On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a large-scale attack on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities under the name “Operation Rising Lion.” The strikes not only targeted sites in Tehran and Natanz, but according to reports, also resulted in heavy casualties, including the deaths of senior commanders and nuclear scientists. This unprecedented action prompted a swift and forceful response from Tehran—more than 100 drones and missiles were launched toward Israel.

This exchange of fire, rooted in decades of hostility and deep-seated concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, was not a sudden skirmish but rather an eruption of long-simmering tensions beneath the region’s surface.

These developments have set off alarm bells in world capitals. Is this merely another chapter in a calculated, limited confrontation between two long-standing enemies seeking to maintain the balance of power and deterrence? Or do recent events represent a potential spark for unprecedented escalation—a full-scale regional war with the potential to draw in global powers and trigger a third world war?

This article explores the possible future scenarios in this dangerous confrontation. By analyzing the military balance and vulnerabilities of Iran and Israel, and by examining the strategic interests of key global players such as the United States, Europe, Russia, and China, we aim to clarify the dimensions of this crisis. From the overlooked domestic drivers of Israel’s decision-making to worst-case possibilities, the goal of this analysis is to present a comprehensive picture of the uncertain future of the Iran–Israel conflict—a confrontation that could impact not only two nations but also the stability of the global order.

Iran and Israel: A Comparative Strategic Assessment

The recent direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel has once again drawn global attention to the strategic strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Although Israel possesses qualitative and technological superiority in military affairs, Iran’s strategic depth and expansive missile arsenal add complexity to the equation. Understanding this balance of power is essential for assessing the possible future scenarios.

Israel’s Military Superiority: Technology and Precision

Israel boasts one of the most modern and advanced air forces in the world, forming the backbone of its offensive capabilities. Fifth-generation F-35I Adir stealth fighters, alongside F-15I Ra'am and F-16 jets, enable Israel to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, strike critical targets with precision, and conduct long-range operations. The stealth features of the F-35I offer a major strategic advantage against Iran’s air defense systems.

On the defensive front, Israel operates a highly effective multi-layered missile defense system:

• Iron Dome for intercepting short-range rockets and missiles

• David’s Sling for medium-range threats

• Arrow systems for long-range ballistic missiles

Recent operations demonstrated that these systems perform relatively well under high volumes of incoming threats. Additionally, Israel’s robust intelligence and cyber capabilities—particularly the covert operations of Mossad—grant it a significant edge in asymmetric warfare and in disrupting enemy infrastructure.

Iran’s Strength: Strategic Depth and Missile Deterrence

In contrast, Iran—despite decades of sanctions and limited access to modern fighter aircraft—has invested heavily in the development of indigenous missile and drone technologies. It possesses one of the largest ballistic and cruise missile arsenals in the Middle East, with some systems capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory. The claim of developing hypersonic missiles further complicates defense strategies against Iran.

Iran’s vast geography is another major strategic asset. The dispersal and fortification of critical facilities—many of them underground, such as some nuclear sites—make offensive strikes more difficult and costly for any aggressor.

Moreover, Iran’s asymmetric power projection through a network of regional proxies (e.g., Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen) allows it to activate multiple fronts against Israel and U.S. interests if needed, placing additional strain on enemy defenses.

Mutual Vulnerabilities: Weak Spots at the Core of Power

Despite their strengths, both countries suffer from significant vulnerabilities. Israel’s small size and high population density make it highly exposed to drone and missile attacks. Even a limited strike that penetrates its defensive layers can cause substantial human and economic losses and dampen public morale. Although Israel’s defense systems are advanced, under a “full saturation” scenario—mass simultaneous launches—they may fail to intercept all threats.

Iran’s main weaknesses lie in its traditional air force and air defense capabilities. Its fighter fleet is largely outdated and cannot compete directly with Israel’s fifth-generation jets in air-to-air combat. While systems like the Bavar-373 represent progress in domestic air defense development, they remain vulnerable to stealth and complex attack strategies. This makes deep aerial strikes against vital Iranian facilities more feasible for Israel.

Ultimately, the strategic balance between Iran and Israel is a complex interplay of strengths and vulnerabilities. While this dynamic creates a form of mutual deterrence, it also means that any miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation could rapidly evolve into a large-scale and catastrophic conflict.

The United States: The Middle Actor

Amid this intensifying confrontation, the role of the United States—arguably the most significant foreign actor in the Middle East—is not only critical but also complex and multifaceted. Under the Trump administration, with its “America First” doctrine and pragmatic approach, Washington appears determined to advance its strategic objectives in the region without becoming directly entangled in a costly large-scale war. Leveraging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive posture as a pressure tool against Iran seems to be part of this calculated strategy.

Indirect Leverage: Trump’s Calculations

Trump’s approach to the Middle East is rooted in reducing direct military commitments while maintaining maximum influence. At a time when the U.S. is grappling with domestic challenges (including the upcoming presidential election) and strategic competition with powers like China, entering a full-fledged Middle East war could impose steep political, economic, and human costs.

Hence:

• Pushing for a “Better Deal”: Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need for a comprehensive new agreement with Iran. Decisive Israeli strikes can act as a form of “shock therapy,” putting Tehran under unprecedented pressure and forcing it to offer more concessions at the negotiating table. This allows Washington to maintain strong leverage without the direct deployment of American troops.

• Economic and Geopolitical Interests: While oil price hikes resulting from Middle East instability are unfavorable for U.S. consumers, a controlled—not catastrophic—increase may serve as a pressure tool against energy-dependent economies like China, and potentially benefit U.S. energy producers.

United Kingdom: Aligned and Subordinate Player

Post-Brexit Britain increasingly relies on its “special relationship” with the United States. In the current crisis, London’s stance appears clearly aligned with Washington. While publicly urging restraint, the UK has echoed American concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and supported Israel’s right to self-defense. The previous involvement of British fighter jets in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles (prior to the June 13 strikes) also illustrates this operational alignment.

In reality, Britain, as the U.S.’s “senior partner,” seeks to maintain foreign policy coherence with Washington—even post-Brexit—and avoid any action that might jeopardize this vital alliance.

Avoiding Full-Scale War: The Hidden Red Line

Despite its support for Israel, the U.S. does not seek to ignite a total regional war. Trump is acutely aware that American entanglement in a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict could undermine his political standing and erode U.S. global influence.

Therefore:

• Conditional Support for Israel: Washington’s backing of Tel Aviv—though strong—is contingent upon Israel serving U.S. strategic interests without imposing unsustainable costs. If Israel suffers irreparable military or economic damage or fails to meet American goals, Washington may pressure Tel Aviv to de-escalate or even distance itself from Netanyahu politically. Trump, known for his pragmatism, has no qualms about sacrificing allies for the sake of America’s interests.

• Diplomacy Behind the Curtain: Even amid intensified hostilities, the U.S. has kept diplomatic channels with Iran partially open and continues to emphasize the need for negotiation. This military pressure, indirectly applied through Israel, is intended to strengthen America’s position in any future talks.

In essence, the U.S. plays the role of a “remote strategist,” manipulating regional levers and actors to tilt the balance in its favor without stepping into the battlefield. However, this intricate game of fire carries real dangers. Any miscalculation could quickly spiral out of control and drag Washington into an unwanted war.

Netanyahu: A Unique Actor in Israel’s Domestic Context

Amid rising regional tensions and escalating conflict with Iran, the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is of central importance. Netanyahu is not merely a political leader; he is a figure whose decisions are deeply influenced by Israel’s complex domestic dynamics—particularly his understanding of national security, his ideological heritage, and the social fractures within Israeli society. Understanding these dimensions is essential to interpreting his policies toward Iran.

Ideological Roots and Family Legacy

Netanyahu’s influence on Israeli politics, contrary to the conventional view of tribal politics, stems from the intellectual and political legacy of a powerful family. His father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a prominent historian and a key theorist of Revisionist Zionism—a movement advocating a hardline nationalist stance on Israeli security and Palestinian relations. This worldview, which eventually birthed the Likud Party, was passed on to Benjamin and formed the ideological backbone of his politics.

His own distinguished military background in the elite Sayeret Matkal unit, and the heroic death of his brother Yonatan Netanyahu during Operation Entebbe, have bestowed upon him an unmatched status as a national security symbol in Israel. This legacy enables him to position himself as the unquestioned guardian of Israeli security.

Domestic Politics and Power Preservation

In recent years, Israeli politics has become increasingly personality-driven, with Netanyahu at the center. Through exceptional political maneuvering and coalition-building, he has managed to remain in power for the longest tenure in the country’s history—despite legal challenges and widespread protests. His grip on power is heavily reliant on sustaining alliances with right-wing and religious factions:

• Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox Jews): These highly conservative religious groups, due to their high birthrates and cohesive voting blocs, have become key coalition players. Netanyahu depends on their support—through parties like United Torah Judaism and Shas—who take hardline positions on security and settlement expansion.

• Mizrahi and Russian Jews: Particularly Mizrahi Jews (immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa), form a significant portion of Likud’s voter base. These groups often prioritize national security and support strong measures against external threats.

• Social Fractures: Netanyahu skillfully exploits deep societal divisions in Israel—between secular and religious communities, and to a lesser extent, among ethnic groups—to consolidate power and undermine his opponents.

National Security and the Iranian Nuclear Threat

From Netanyahu’s perspective, Iran’s nuclear program poses an existential threat to Israel. Throughout his tenure, this issue has remained his top national security priority. He has consistently advocated for decisive action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This hardline stance not only aligns with the worldview of Revisionist Zionism but also enjoys strong support within Israeli society and the security establishment.

Thus, any attack on Iran, while high-risk, is viewed by Netanyahu not only as a strategic necessity but also as a powerful political tool. It enables him to portray himself as the only leader capable of defending Israel’s existence—rallying domestic support and maintaining the cohesion of his political alliances.

In conclusion, Netanyahu is a unique player whose decisions are driven by a complex mix of ideological conviction, pragmatic calculations for power retention, and a deeply personal conception of national security. These internal dynamics make him a pivotal—and unpredictable—actor in the unfolding Iran–Israel confrontation.

The European Union: Calculated Passivity

Amid the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, the European Union’s reaction—especially when compared to the U.S. and the UK—appears cautious and less assertive. However, this posture is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Rather, it reflects a combination of existing strategic constraints and a deliberate diplomatic choice, best described as “calculated passivity.”

Focus on the Ukraine Crisis: A Priority Already Engaged

One of the primary reasons behind Europe’s muted stance is the ongoing war of attrition in Ukraine and its confrontation with Russia. A significant portion of the EU’s diplomatic, financial, military, and political resources is currently consumed by the eastern front.

• Crisis Fatigue: European societies, economies, and policymakers have been grappling for years with the consequences of the Ukraine war—from supplying weapons and financial aid to Kyiv, to managing energy crises and refugee inflows. This has drained the capacity and political will to actively engage in another major Middle Eastern crisis.

• Economic Pressures: A full-scale war in the Middle East would likely cause oil prices to skyrocket—further intensifying Europe’s ongoing economic challenges. Europe, highly dependent on energy market stability, seeks to avoid anything that could disrupt it.

• Defense Strategy Reassessment: The Ukraine war has forced many European countries to overhaul their defense strategies and increase military budgets. However, such transformations take time, and until they are complete, Europe’s ability to play a decisive military role on multiple fronts remains limited.

Cautious Diplomacy: Preserving Communication Channels

Europe’s approach to the Iran–Israel conflict is primarily centered around “maximum restraint” and “a return to diplomacy.” This tactic aims to preserve open lines of communication with both sides and prevent further escalation.

• Potential Mediator Role: Europe is wary of aligning too closely with either side, lest it lose its credibility as a potential future mediator. By maintaining a more balanced stance, the EU hopes to retain its capacity to facilitate dialogue when needed.

• Avoiding Escalation: European leaders are acutely aware that any inflammatory rhetoric or provocative action could further inflame the conflict, leading to disastrous consequences for global energy security, refugee flows, and international stability. Their aim is to create space for de-escalation by staying out of the rhetorical fray.

• Concerns Over Iran’s Nuclear Program: Despite its restrained diplomacy, Europe remains seriously concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and consistently emphasizes the need to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This fundamental concern will continue to shape any European engagement with Iran.

In conclusion, the EU’s “calculated passivity” in this crisis is less a sign of paralysis than of strategic prioritization. By focusing its limited resources on the existential threat unfolding in Eastern Europe, the EU seeks to contain its role in the Middle East to diplomatic efforts—aimed at preventing a larger catastrophe.

Three Scenarios Ahead: From Containment to the Spark of Global Catastrophe

The recent exchange of fire between Iran and Israel has dangerously shifted the limits of regional tolerance. The future of this confrontation now teeters on the edge of multiple possible outcomes—ranging from a contained skirmish to a full-blown global war. Understanding these scenarios—and the factors that might steer events toward each—is vital for both regional and global actors.

1. Scenario One: Controlled Confrontation and a Return to Negotiations

(Low risk of expansion)

This is the most likely short-term outcome, but also the most fragile. In this scenario, both sides continue reciprocal threats and limited attacks but avoid crossing red lines that would trigger a total war.

• Motivations for Containment: The unacceptable costs of full-scale war act as the main deterrent. Neither Iran nor Israel desires a conflict that would devastate infrastructure, cause massive civilian casualties, and collapse both economies. International diplomatic pressure—especially from the U.S. and Europe—strongly favors maximum restraint.

• Limited Responses: Any future strikes, if they occur, would likely be targeted and calculated, meant to signal strength rather than aim for total destruction. Both sides would aim to maintain deterrence while keeping future talks possible.

• Re-engagement with Diplomacy: This scenario could ultimately lead both parties back to the negotiating table—this time with “maximum pressure” taking on military dimensions as well. This outcome would align with the U.S. strategy: using Israeli military pressure to force Iran into a broader, tougher agreement.

However, this scenario is highly vulnerable to tactical missteps. A single miscalculation could swiftly escalate the situation into far more dangerous territory.

2. Scenario Two: Full-Scale Regional War

(Moderate to high risk of expansion)

In this scenario, the conflict spirals beyond containment into an all-out regional war.

• Escalation Triggers:

  • Miscalculation or Accidental Strike: An unintended hit on a sensitive target or unexpected casualties could provoke uncontrollable retaliation.

  • Crossing Red Lines: If either party—for example, Israel striking vital and irrecoverable Iranian facilities, or Iran targeting Israeli population centers with precise and devastating missile attacks—crosses a strategic red line.

  • Proxy Activation: Iran could fully mobilize its proxy network, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon, which would open a northern front with thousands of rockets fired into Israeli territory. Militias in Iraq, Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen might also intensify attacks on U.S. and allied interests.

• Regional Consequences:

  • Closure of the Strait of Hormuz: Iran may attempt to block or severely disrupt this vital oil shipping lane, which handles nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply. Such action would plunge the global economy into an unprecedented energy crisis.

  • Widespread Instability: Security collapses across the Middle East, a surge in terrorism, and waves of mass migration would throw the region into chaos.

This scenario would draw regional actors into a grinding conflict that could last for years—inflicting devastating economic and humanitarian consequences.

3. Scenario Three: The Spark of World War III

(High risk with global catastrophic consequences)

This is the darkest and most disastrous scenario—where the conflict surpasses regional boundaries and drags global powers into direct military confrontation. Two key developments could ignite such a global crisis:

• Iran’s Nuclear Reveal: Collapse of the Global Order
  If Iran, under existential threat or in the face of all-out Israeli–American military aggression, formally unveils nuclear weapons capabilities—or even moves decisively toward weaponization—the crisis would spiral out of control.

  • Such a move would shatter the global non-proliferation regime, potentially triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey seeking nuclear options).

  • It would also bring Israel to the brink of launching a massive preemptive strike—likely with U.S. backing—to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability before it becomes operational.

• Direct U.S. Military Intervention: Entry of China and Russia
  If the confrontation expands to the point where the United States is forced into large-scale direct military involvement (e.g., in response to Iranian attacks on U.S. bases or personnel, or to support Israel under heavy assault), a total war with Iran would erupt.
  In such a scenario, China and Russia could respond militarily—not out of ideological allegiance, but due to strategic and geopolitical interests:

  • Preserving the Balance of Power: Neither China nor Russia would tolerate the complete destruction of an independent regional actor like Iran, which would cement American hegemony in the Middle East and undermine their multipolar world ambitions.

  • Energy and Economic Stakes: Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz and a global energy crisis would severely damage China’s economy (as the world’s largest energy consumer) and affect Russia’s energy export revenues.

  • Loss of a Strategic Ally: Iran plays a pivotal role in both China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s regional influence. Its collapse would weaken resistance to Western power.

  • Strategic Opportunity: American entanglement in a major Middle East war could give Russia and China a window to advance their own objectives elsewhere—e.g., in Ukraine or Taiwan—even if indirectly confronting U.S. power.

Global Catastrophic Consequences

Any level of direct Chinese or Russian military support to Iran—whether through advanced weapon shipments, advisory missions, or in the worst-case scenario, full engagement—could quickly transform the conflict into a global war with potential nuclear implications. The world economy would collapse, humanitarian and refugee crises would reach unprecedented levels, and the international order as we know it could disintegrate.

This is a nightmare scenario that all parties must urgently and collectively strive to avoid.

References

·  International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015–2025). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). Quarterly reports. https://www.iaea.org

·  International Crisis Group. (2020). Iran and the bomb: The way forward (Middle East Report No. 202). https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/202-iran-and-bomb-way-forward

·  United Nations Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2231 (2015). https://undocs.org/S/RES/2231(2015)

·  Jane’s Information Group. (2023). Iran military capabilities. Jane’s Defence Weekly. https://www.janes.com

·  Cordesman, A. H. (2020). Iran’s military forces and warfighting capabilities. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). https://www.csis.org

·  Fishbein, E., & Shapir, Y. S. (2021). Israel’s air and missile defense systems: Capabilities and limitations. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org

·  U.S. Department of State. (2024). Official statements on Iran and Middle East security. https://www.state.gov

·  Eisenstadt, M. (2019). Trump’s Iran strategy: Maximum pressure, minimum war. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org

·  Chatham House. (2023). UK foreign policy after Brexit and its Middle East alignment. https://www.chathamhouse.org

·  European Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). Europe’s response to escalation in the Middle East. https://ecfr.eu

·  Gabuev, A. (2022). Russia’s strategic stakes in Iran and the Middle East. Carnegie Moscow Center. https://carnegie.ru

·  Zheng, S. (2023). China’s geopolitical interests in the Persian Gulf and Iran. Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS). https://merics.org

·  Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2023). The global nuclear order and Iran’s role. https://www.sipri.org

·  Waltz, K. N., & Sagan, S. D. (2021). The risk of miscalculation in the Iran-Israel conflict. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.belfercenter.org

·  Atlantic Council. (2024). Is the next world war brewing in the Middle East? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org