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 government's campaign in Gaza, these Israeli strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a war cry against a regime in Tehran.
According to TRTworld.com, Israel, unlike other states in the region, has nuclear weapons, receives state-of-the-art weaponry from Washington, and is shielded by sophisticated American air defenses. Should the US formally enter this ongoing war, the consequences could be destabilizing. If the US were to intervene, Iran's weakened 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 protracted, multi-domain confrontation. 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 and former advisor to President Vladimir Putin. He argues that Israeli strikes so far appear more effective than Iran's responses. Still, Markov notes that uncertainty surrounds the conflict, 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-busters 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 together were able to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, we would see a more stable Middle East with a lower risk of nuclear catastrophe.
Not all experts share this optimism. Nuclear analysts warn that bombing Fordow might not delay Iran's nuclear ambitions. Thousands of Iranian scientists could continue advancing the program. Military action is unlikely to be definitive, wrote James Acton, a director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
If the US and Israel continue down the military path, hoping to trigger regime change in Tehran or spark a popular uprising, they risk provoking the opposite: a prolonged war with no guarantee of political transformation. Bryza warns that if the current clerical regime remains in Tehran, it can take measures like blocking the Strait of Hormuz and resorting to hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets. If such escalations lead to Iranian attacks on US military bases, Washington could be drawn into deeper involvement.
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, through which a significant portion of the world's oil supply passes. Financial markets would be rattled by geopolitical instability. A wider war could disrupt global supply chains and empower revisionist actors-Russia and China-in their respective spheres of influence.
Domestically, Trump's Iran war ambitions are sowing discord within his own MAGA base. Pro-Trump figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have publicly questioned the wisdom of war with Iran, revealing a rift between pro-Zionist interventionists and anti-war conservatives. Beyond strengthening US rivals like China and Russia, such a conflict would undermine Trump's America First vision, pulling the US into another Middle Eastern quagmire and weakening its position in the Indo-Pacific.
Bryza echoes this concern. A war with Iran could provoke a severe political backlash among Trump's supporters, many of whom are staunchly anti-interventionist, which could cause a political liability for both 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 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.