In this scenario, the conflict spirals into a full-blown, conventional war across the Middle East.

• Description: Iran, viewing the U.S. strikes as an existential assault aimed at regime change, retaliates with its full remaining capabilities. This would involve massive ballistic missile and drone barrages targeting not only Israel but also U.S. military bases in the Gulf (Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) and critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. Iran's proxies would be fully activated: Hezbollah would unleash its vast rocket arsenal on northern Israel, the Houthis would attempt to close the Bab al-Mandeb strait to all shipping, and Iraqi militias would launch sustained attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. and Israel would respond with a sustained air campaign to destroy Iran's military, IRGC command centers, and remaining nuclear-related sites. The conflict would likely draw in Gulf Arab states, either as targets or as reluctant participants in the U.S.-led coalition.  

• Triggers: A miscalculation by either side, such as an Iranian missile strike causing mass American casualties, or an Israeli strike that kills a top-echelon political leader like the Supreme Leader. Another trigger could be a decision by Iran's leadership that a "rally 'round the flag" war is the only way to ensure regime survival amidst internal pressure.

• Likelihood: Medium. While this is the most destructive scenario, all parties have some incentive to avoid it. Iran knows it cannot win a conventional war against the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. wishes to avoid another costly Mideast quagmire. Israel fears a multi-front war that could overwhelm its air defenses and devastate its civilian population. However, the logic of escalation, once started, is difficult to control.

• Implications: Catastrophic human casualties across the region, a global economic crisis triggered by the collapse of oil markets, a massive refugee crisis, and the potential for the use of non-conventional weapons.

Scenario 2: Diplomatic Freeze and Contained Tit-for-Tat

This scenario represents a return to a more violent version of the pre-war status quo, with direct conflict ceasing but tensions remaining at a boiling point.

• Description: After the initial U.S. strikes and an Iranian retaliatory response, both sides pull back from the brink of all-out war. The conflict transitions into a "diplomatic freeze," characterized by global condemnation, emergency UN Security Council meetings, and intense but ultimately fruitless diplomatic efforts. Direct state-on-state attacks cease, but are replaced by a heightened campaign of covert and proxy actions. Israel might ramp up assassinations and sabotage inside Iran. Iran would likely intensify its proxy attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests globally, including cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and terrorism against soft targets. The region would remain a tinderbox, with the constant threat of re-escalation.  

• Triggers: The initial U.S. and Iranian strikes are damaging but not perceived as existentially threatening, allowing both sides to claim a measure of "victory" and de-escalate without losing face. Intense back-channel pressure from China, Russia, and European powers successfully imposes a fragile ceasefire.

• Likelihood: High. This scenario aligns with the historical pattern of calibrated escalation and response between the actors. It allows leaders to appear strong to their domestic audiences while avoiding the immense costs of a full-scale regional war. It represents a tense, unstable, but manageable equilibrium.

• Implications: A prolonged period of extreme instability in the Middle East. Increased risk of miscalculation leading to future escalation. Continued economic pressure on Iran and disruption to regional trade and investment. The nuclear issue would remain unresolved and even more dangerous.

Scenario 3: Globalized Conflict and New Cold War Blocs

In this dangerous scenario, the regional conflict becomes the primary theater for a global confrontation between great power blocs.

• Description: In response to the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Russia and China decide that their interests are best served by abandoning their strategic ambiguity and providing more overt and substantial support to Iran. This would not necessarily mean direct military intervention, but a massive airlift of advanced weaponry: sophisticated Russian air defense systems (S-400s), fighter jets, and anti-ship missiles, alongside Chinese cyber defense technology and economic support to make Iran sanction-proof. The U.S. would respond by increasing its own military deployments and pressuring its allies in Europe and Asia to fully sanction Russia and China. The world would effectively bifurcate into two hostile blocs: a U.S.-led coalition (including Israel, the UK, and key NATO/Asian allies) and the Iran-Russia-China axis. The Middle East would become the central front of a new, more volatile Cold War.  

• Triggers: A perception in Moscow and Beijing that the U.S. goal is not just to degrade Iran's nuclear program but to install a pro-U.S. regime, which they would see as a catastrophic strategic defeat. Alternatively, a collapse of the Iranian regime could be seen as creating a power vacuum that they must fill to prevent U.S. dominance.

• Likelihood: Low-to-Medium. This is a high-risk strategy for both Russia and China. China, in particular, wants to avoid a direct confrontation with the U.S. that would jeopardize its global economic interests. Russia is already bogged down in Ukraine. However, if they believe the alternative is the complete consolidation of U.S. power in the world's most critical energy region, they may see intervention as the lesser of two evils.  

• Implications: The formalization of a global bipolar conflict. A new and far more dangerous arms race in the Middle East. The potential for direct clashes between U.S. and Russian/Chinese forces, with the attendant risk of nuclear escalation. The complete paralysis of the UN Security Council.

Scenario 4: De-escalation and a New Diplomatic Framework

This is the most optimistic, though perhaps least likely, scenario in the immediate aftermath of the conflict.

• Description: The shock of direct U.S.-Iran military exchanges and the specter of a catastrophic regional war create a powerful incentive for de-escalation. Through urgent back-channel talks—likely mediated by countries like Oman, Qatar, or even China—a ceasefire is achieved. This is followed by a broader diplomatic initiative, perhaps under UN or regional auspices, to address the root causes of the conflict. This would involve a "face-saving" retreat for all sides. Iran might agree to a new, more stringent, and longer-lasting nuclear agreement in exchange for verifiable security guarantees and the lifting of sanctions. The U.S. and Israel would have to accept the legitimacy of the Iranian regime and its right to a peaceful nuclear energy program under strict monitoring.  

• Triggers: The initial strikes are so destructive that they sober all parties to the reality of what a full war would entail. A change in leadership or a shift in domestic political calculations in one of the key countries could create a new opening for diplomacy. A united front from the international community (including China and Russia) demanding de-escalation could create irresistible pressure.

• Likelihood: Low. The level of animosity, distrust, and ideological opposition is incredibly high. The domestic political costs of making the necessary compromises would be immense for leaders in Tehran, Jerusalem, and Washington. The core goals of the regimes—survival, absolute security, and regional dominance—are fundamentally in conflict.

• Implications: A potential, if fragile, return to regional stability. The re-establishment of a non-proliferation framework for Iran. A reduction in the risk of global war. However, it would require a monumental shift in the strategic thinking of all actors involved.

Goals & Motives—Do They Really Want Peace?

Public statements from world leaders often speak of peace, stability, and adherence to international law. However, the actions of nations are driven by a deeper, more complex set of goals and motivations rooted in national interest, regime survival, and historical identity. To understand the current crisis, one must compare the stated intentions of each actor with their actual behavior. The gap between the two reveals their true priorities.

• Iran:

  • Stated Intention: Iran claims its foreign policy is based on peace, independence, and justice. It frames its nuclear program as exclusively for peaceful energy purposes and its regional presence as support for oppressed peoples, particularly the Palestinians, against Israeli and American aggression. It offers diplomatic solutions and engagement to lift sanctions.  

  • Real-World Actions & True Goals: Iran's primary, non-negotiable goal is regime survival. Every foreign policy decision is filtered through this lens. Its pursuit of regional hegemony through the "Axis of Resistance" is not just ideological; it's a strategic doctrine designed to create "strategic depth," keeping its enemies bogged down far from its borders. Its nuclear program is the ultimate life insurance policy—a tool of  

    nuclear brinkmanship designed to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack that could topple the regime. While Iran may not want a nuclear war, it desperately wants the  

    capability to build a bomb as leverage. Peace, for Tehran, means the end of sanctions and the acceptance of its regional sphere of influence, conditions its adversaries are unwilling to grant.  

• Israel:

  • Stated Intention: Israel states its goal is peace and security for its people within recognized borders. It frames its military actions as defensive necessities, aimed at preempting terrorist attacks and preventing existential threats from materializing. It has signed peace treaties with several Arab nations as proof of its peaceful intent.  

  • Real-World Actions & True Goals: Israel's paramount goal is absolute security and the permanent preservation of the Jewish state. Shaped by historical trauma, its security doctrine is uncompromisingly realist: it trusts only in its own strength. It seeks not just deterrence, but regional military dominance and the freedom to preemptively neutralize any threat it deems existential, whether that threat is a nuclear reactor in Iraq or an Iranian weapons convoy in Syria. The "red lines" it draws are non-negotiable. Peace is desirable, but only a peace that guarantees its military supremacy and eliminates all serious threats to its existence. This maximalist definition of security often leads to actions that destabilize the region and make a broader peace unattainable.  

• United States:

  • Stated Intention: The U.S. publicly seeks regional stability, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, the protection of its allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia), and the promotion of democracy and human rights. It often frames its actions, from sanctions to military strikes, as necessary to uphold the "rules-based international order".  

  • Real-World Actions & True Goals: The primary U.S. goal is to maintain regional stability on its own terms, which means preserving its status as the dominant external power in the Middle East. This involves protecting the free flow of oil, ensuring the security of key allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and containing the influence of its global rivals, Russia and China. U.S. actions are also heavily influenced by domestic politics; presidential administrations must appear "tough" on Iran to satisfy domestic constituencies, which can lead to policies like the JCPOA withdrawal or the Soleimani assassination that run counter to long-term stability. The U.S. wants a "peace" that secures its strategic primacy, a condition that revisionist powers like Iran, Russia, and China are dedicated to challenging.  

• Russia:

  • Stated Intention: Russia presents itself as a responsible global power and a potential mediator, calling for de-escalation, diplomacy, and adherence to international law. It criticizes unilateral U.S. actions and advocates for a multipolar world where all nations' interests are respected.  

  • Real-World Actions & True Goals: Russia's core objective is to disrupt and diminish U.S. power and influence wherever possible. The Middle East is a key arena for this contest. By supporting Iran, Russia gains a strategic foothold in the region, expands its arms sales, and complicates U.S. policy. It seeks access to warm-water ports and wants to be seen as an indispensable power broker in regional conflicts. While it calls for peace, it benefits from a state of managed instability that keeps the U.S. off-balance and creates opportunities for Russian influence to grow.  

• China:

  • Stated Intention: China consistently calls for restraint, dialogue, and a political solution to the crisis. It emphasizes respect for sovereignty and non-interference, positioning itself as a neutral and constructive peace-broker.  

  • Real-World Actions & True Goals: China's overarching goal is to secure its economic interests and gradually supplant U.S. influence. Its primary need is the stable flow of Middle Eastern energy to fuel its economy. It uses its economic might, via the BRI, to build influence and dependencies. Its support for Iran is a strategic hedge against the U.S., but it carefully balances this with its relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel. China wants peace and stability above all, because war is bad for business and disrupts the energy markets upon which it depends. Its calls for peace are genuine, but they are driven by economic self-interest and a desire to see U.S. power wane peacefully, not in a conflagration that could damage its own rise.  

In conclusion, none of the major powers can be said to truly want peace if "peace" implies significant compromise on their core objectives. Iran's vision of peace requires the acceptance of its regional dominance, which Israel and the U.S. will never grant. Israel's vision of peace requires the complete dismantlement of all existential threats, which would mean the capitulation of the Iranian regime. The U.S. vision of peace requires the preservation of its own hegemony, which Russia and China are dedicated to ending. They are locked in a struggle where the pursuit of their own maximalist goals makes a mutually acceptable and lasting peace an almost impossible proposition.

Risks of Global War: How Serious Is This?

The direct military confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran, with the looming shadows of Russia and China, has pushed the world closer to a global conflict than at any point since the Cold War. The seriousness of this moment cannot be overstated. It is a confluence of historical grievances, modern military technology, and great power competition that echoes some of the most dangerous escalatory spirals in history.

Historical precedents serve as a stark warning. The summer of 1914 saw a regional crisis in the Balkans—the assassination of an archduke—metastasize into a world war through a rigid system of alliances, mobilization schedules, and a collective failure of imagination by leaders who believed a short, decisive war was possible. In 1967, a cycle of threats, miscalculations, and preemptive action in the Middle East led to the Six-Day War, fundamentally altering the region in ways that still resonate. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched on the premise of preempting a WMD threat, unleashed decades of instability, empowered Iran, and demonstrated the profound, unintended consequences of military intervention. The current crisis contains elements of all three: the rigid alignments of rival blocs, the doctrine of preemption, and the potential for catastrophic miscalculation.

The risks today are magnified by the nature of 21st-century warfare:

• Nuclear and Cyber Risks: The central issue is Iran's nuclear program. While the U.S. and Israeli strikes in 2025 aimed to destroy it, the knowledge remains. A desperate Iranian regime, believing its survival is on the line, could make a final dash to assemble a crude nuclear device, or even deploy radiological "dirty bombs" through its proxies. This crosses a threshold that could provoke a devastating response. Israel itself is a widely acknowledged, undeclared nuclear power, adding another layer of catastrophic risk. Simultaneously, the conflict is being waged in the cyber domain. Destructive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure—power grids, financial systems, dams, and industrial controls—are no longer theoretical. A successful attack could cause chaos and casualties on a scale equivalent to a major kinetic strike, further blurring the lines of escalation.  

• Economic Fallout: The Middle East remains the world's energy heartland. A full-blown war involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the strategic shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb would instantly trigger a global energy crisis. Oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the world into a severe economic recession. Global supply chains, already fragile, would be shattered, leading to widespread inflation and economic hardship.  

• Refugee Crises and Regional Destabilization: A regional war would generate millions of refugees, overwhelming neighboring countries and creating humanitarian disasters that would dwarf those seen in Syria and Ukraine. The internal stability of fragile states like Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan could completely collapse, creating vast ungoverned spaces for extremist groups to flourish.

• Red Lines and Miscalculation: Each actor in this conflict operates with a set of "red lines"—thresholds that, if crossed, would trigger a massive response. For Israel, it is the acquisition of a nuclear bomb by Iran. For Iran, it is a direct assault aimed at toppling the regime. For the United States, it could be a mass-casualty attack on its forces or citizens. The danger lies in the ambiguity and perception of these red lines. In the fog of a multi-domain war fought with missiles, drones, proxies, and cyberattacks, a miscalculation is not just possible, but likely. An attack intended as a limited signal could be misinterpreted as a crossing of a red line, triggering an unstoppable escalatory spiral. The involvement of Russia and China adds another layer of complexity, as a clash between their forces and those of the U.S., even if accidental, could have global consequences.  

The current situation is therefore exceptionally grave. The guardrails that once contained the Iran-Israel conflict—the reliance on proxies, the fear of direct confrontation, and the JCPOA—have all been dismantled. The conflict is now direct, overt, and involves the world's foremost military and economic powers.

What to Watch For—Key Indicators

In this volatile and rapidly evolving environment, discerning signal from noise is critical. The following are key indicators to monitor that will provide insight into the trajectory of the conflict—whether toward further escalation, a fragile de-escalation, or a prolonged stalemate.

• Official Statements (Real vs. Coded Warnings): Pay close attention to the specific language used by leaders in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem. Distinguish between rhetoric intended for domestic consumption (e.g., broad vows of "crushing revenge") and specific, coded warnings intended for adversaries. A statement from Iran that it "reserves all options" is standard, but a specific threat to target U.S. bases in the Gulf or close the Strait of Hormuz is a significant escalation. Similarly, a U.S. statement about "freedom of navigation" is routine, but a declaration that it will hold the Iranian regime "directly accountable" for the actions of its proxies signals a shift in the rules of engagement.  

• Troop and Asset Movements: Track the deployment of key military assets. The movement of U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups toward the Persian Gulf, the forward deployment of B-2 or B-52 bombers to regional bases like Diego Garcia, and the dispersal of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet from its headquarters in Bahrain are all indicators of preparation for sustained military action. Conversely, the repositioning of these assets away from the region could signal an intent to de-escalate. Watch for joint military drills between Iran, Russia, and China, as their frequency and complexity signal the deepening of their military cooperation.  

• Proxy Activity in the Region: The actions of Iran's proxies are a crucial barometer of its strategic intent. A significant increase in rocket attacks from Hezbollah into Israel, Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, or militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq would indicate that Iran has chosen to escalate via its asymmetric network. A notable decrease or complete cessation of these attacks could be a sign that Iran is seeking to de-escalate or has been effectively deterred.  

• Sudden Diplomatic Activity or Silence: A flurry of unexpected diplomatic activity—such as visits by European, Chinese, or Russian foreign ministers to Tehran and Jerusalem, or emergency sessions of the UN Security Council—can signal a concerted international push for de-escalation. Conversely, a sudden breakdown in communication and the severing of back channels would be an ominous sign that the parties have decided on a military course of action. The public statements of mediating countries like Oman and Qatar are particularly important to watch.  

• Economic and Cyber Indicators: Monitor global oil prices for sudden spikes, which would indicate market fears of a disruption to supply from the Persian Gulf. Watch for announcements from major airlines suspending flights or re-routing traffic away from the conflict zone. Be alert to reports of major cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure in any of the involved nations or their allies, as this is a likely vector for deniable, gray-zone escalation.  

Conclusion

The 2025 war between Iran, Israel, and the United States is the violent culmination of decades of ideological hostility, strategic competition, and repeated miscalculation. It marks the failure of deterrence and the collapse of the fragile order that, for years, kept the shadow war from erupting into open conflict. The historical arc from the 1953 coup to the 1979 revolution, and from the JCPOA's promise to its ultimate demise, reveals a path paved with grievances and missed opportunities. Each nation, acting on what it perceived as its vital national interest, contributed to a security dilemma that became an inescapable trap.

Iran, driven by a revolutionary identity and a deep-seated fear of foreign-backed regime change, pursued a strategy of asymmetric deterrence that ultimately provoked the very attack it was designed to prevent. Israel, operating under a doctrine of absolute security, chose to preempt an existential threat with an offensive campaign that risks igniting a multi-front war it may not be able to control. The United States, oscillating between diplomatic engagement and maximum pressure, failed to craft a consistent and sustainable policy, ultimately fueling the cycle of escalation. Meanwhile, Russia and China, in their quest to challenge American hegemony, have provided a strategic lifeline to Iran, globalizing a regional conflict and raising the stakes to a level not seen in generations.

The world now faces a precarious choice between a catastrophic regional war with global implications and a fragile, tense de-escalation that leaves the core issues unresolved. The path forward is fraught with peril. The doctrines of preemption and asymmetric retaliation are locked in a deadly embrace, and the risk of a miscalculation leading to an uncontrollable escalatory spiral is acute. While the immediate focus is on crisis management and preventing further bloodshed, a lasting peace will remain elusive until the fundamental conflict between the core objectives of the key actors is addressed. This would require a monumental shift in strategic thinking—a move away from zero-sum competition and toward a new security architecture for the Middle East built on mutual recognition and verifiable constraints. In the current climate of intense hostility and distrust, such a resolution seems a distant hope. The more probable future is one of sustained, high-stakes confrontation, where the world holds its breath, watching for the next move on a five-sided chessboard where the price of losing could be catastrophic for all.

Further Reading

• Crisis Group, "Getting Israel and Iran to Hold Their Fire," June 13, 2025.

• Chatham House, "Competing visions of international order," March 2025.

• United States Institute of Peace, "Iran Primer."

• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "What Are Russian Foreign Policy Objectives?," May 1999.

• Lowy Institute, "Chinese Worldviews and China’s Foreign Policy," November 2015.

• The National Archives, "Press Release Announcing U.S. Recognition of Israel (1948)."

• Wikipedia, "Iran-Iraq War," "Iran-Contra Affair," "Stuxnet."

• Britannica, "1953 coup in Iran," "Iran hostage crisis."