New York: 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 dazzling series of victories by Israel. These narratives often portray Israel, a small state, as having launched brilliant attacks on Iran, a country of 92 million, targeting its top leadership and nuclear scientists. In the context of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government’s campaign in Gaza, these Israeli strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a 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 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 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 in a bid to stretch US capacity across multiple fronts.
What began as a shadow war is evolving into a protracted, multi-domain confrontation with risks of regional implosion. Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst and former advisor to President Vladimir Putin, argues that Israeli strikes so far appear more effective than Iran’s responses. However, he notes the uncertainty surrounding the conflict due to 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. Instead, he envisions targeted strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility using bunker-buster bombs, paired with logistical support for Israeli air campaigns. Bryza suggests that destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities could lead to a more stable Middle East.
However, nuclear analysts warn that bombing Fordow alone might not substantially delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. James Acton, a director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of military action in a New York Times piece.
Bryza warns that if military operations fail to bring down the Iranian leadership, enormous tension could follow possible US-Israel strikes. If the clerical regime remains in Tehran, it could take measures like blocking the Strait of Hormuz and resorting to hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets.
Krieg, an expert, concurs that surrender or disarmament is unlikely. The Islamic Republic’s identity is shaped by resistance and survival under siege, and if it perceives a threat, it may escalate drastically, including asymmetric attacks on US forces and strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure.
Krieg also warns that a US-led strike could trigger a global oil shock, especially if Iran attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes. Financial markets would be disrupted by geopolitical instability, and a wider war could empower revisionist 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 publicly questioned the wisdom of war with Iran. Beyond strengthening US rivals, such a conflict would undermine Trump’s America First vision, pulling the US into another Middle Eastern quagmire.
Bryza echoes this concern, warning of a severe political backlash among Trump’s supporters, many of whom are anti-interventionist. However, Trump may not be deterred, believing his base will follow him. Yet, a major public backlash could ignite if an Iranian missile strike were to kill American soldiers at a US base, warns Markov.