The United States has been massing its fleets and aircraft across the region at a level unprecedented since the 2003 war on Iraq. American forces are positioned in multiple countries surrounding Iran and across the broader Middle East in connection with Europe. From Azerbaijan and Armenia to Jordan and Israel, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to the Gulf states, alongside intensified deployment in military bases across Greece, Spain, Germany and Britain, in addition to the world’s largest aircraft carriers, Washington’s military footprint has expanded significantly.
Amid this, Iran has repeatedly declared that it does not seek war, yet it is preparing as though conflict could erupt at any moment. Meanwhile, the United States continues its military build up as if approaching a decisive strategic confrontation that could reshape the Middle East, beginning with a battle against Iran. This has placed the region, and indeed the wider world, in a state of anxiety and uncertainty.
Scenarios of Agreement or War
The potential paths of confrontation between Tehran and Washington appear increasingly limited amid escalating pressure, heightened rhetoric and mounting threats.
First Scenario: Political Agreement at the Edge of War
The first scenario involves reaching a political agreement at the brink of war, with Iran accepting American and Israeli conditions. These include abandoning its nuclear project, relinquishing ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and ceasing support for its regional allies such as the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansar Allah in Yemen and Hamas in Palestine.
In this context, it would be difficult for Tehran to accept all American and Israeli conditions. Although it seeks an honourable political exit that preserves its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, even at lower levels, it refuses to abandon its ballistic missile system, which it argues demonstrated deterrent capability during the twelve day war with Israel.
Even if Iranian leadership were to consider conceding to these three core demands, it would face a profound domestic challenge. The Iranian public could question why the country endured decades of sanctions and economic pressure if strategic defence projects were to be relinquished at the first major confrontation with Washington and Tel Aviv.
More critically, Iranian leadership would have no guarantee of regime stability if it surrendered its leverage. It is not inconceivable that the United States and Israel, particularly under President Donald Trump, could later seek to weaken or overthrow the Iranian government, either militarily after reducing its capabilities or internally by mobilising segments of the opposition, as seen during the bazaar protests that began on 28 December last year.
The regional trajectory appears to be moving towards escalation unless Washington lowers its maximalist demands. Given the extensive American military mobilisation and an Israeli leadership openly preparing for confrontation, such de escalation appears unlikely.
Second Scenario: A Limited Strike
The second scenario involves a limited military strike if negotiations fail, aimed at compelling Tehran to concede to American and Israeli demands.
Several American sources have indicated that President Trump is considering this option among others. However, such a strike risks complicating or even closing the path to negotiations due to renewed hostilities and deepened mistrust.
Iran may also view submitting to such pressure as the beginning of an unending chain of concessions under the threat of overwhelming American force. Moreover, Israel has demonstrated skill in expanding its objectives during conflict based on shifts in the balance of power.
This explains Iran’s repeated assertion that any strike framed as limited would be treated as a declaration of war. In response, Tehran has warned it would target Israel as well as American bases and forces across the region.
Third Scenario: Comprehensive War
The third scenario involves full scale war aimed at defeating Iran, changing the regime or forcing acceptance of American and Israeli conditions. At present, this scenario appears to be gaining momentum for several reasons.
Iran remains committed to its position, insisting on its right to peaceful enrichment and retaining its nuclear knowledge, while rejecting negotiations over its ballistic missiles.
The scale of American military deployment in the Middle East and around Iran places President Trump in a difficult position. Retreat without achieving stated objectives could damage America’s global image.
The far right Israeli leadership under Benjamin Netanyahu views striking Iran and toppling its government as a historic opportunity. It sees this as a gateway to weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansar Allah in Yemen and the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, thereby advancing its ambitions regarding the Palestinian file and expanding its regional influence.
The United States has the capacity to initiate war, strike deep within Iran and destroy significant infrastructure, command centres and economic and oil facilities. However, it may not control the ultimate outcome or the long term consequences of such a conflict.
Reasons Behind Trump’s Hesitation
Comprehensive war may appear strategically appealing to both Israel and the United States, provided the outcome is guaranteed and swift, resulting in Iran’s defeat or compliance. Such an outcome would reinforce American dominance in the region, reshape the Middle East according to Zionist American criteria and counter China and Russia, while enabling Israel to consolidate its regional standing.
Yet war carries profound risks. If Iran maintains internal cohesion at the leadership and popular level and transforms the confrontation into a war of attrition against American and Israeli forces, the conflict could be prolonged. Israel continues to grapple with the consequences of its ongoing war on Gaza, which remains unresolved.
Concern over a drawn out war reportedly led the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to present President Trump with assessments about the possibility of a prolonged conflict and its impact on American forces. Reports that General Dan Caine opposed war with Iran prompted Trump to dismiss such claims as misleading and false. He clarified that while military leaders may not desire war, they believe victory would be achievable if confrontation were decided upon.
American policymakers are aware that a protracted war would impose heavy economic and military costs and strain Washington’s political relations, particularly with Arab states and Türkiye, which oppose war and favour a political solution. These states also express concern over the conduct of Israel’s leadership and its expansionist ambitions, openly discussed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and referenced by the American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, in his interview with Tucker Carlson.
A resilient Iran enduring a prolonged war would also provide China and Russia with an opportunity to exhaust the United States and recalibrate global power balances. Iran maintains strategic ties with both Beijing and Moscow, and its defeat would represent a significant geopolitical loss for them, particularly given its strategic position overlooking the Caspian Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime passages.
President Trump must also consider domestic political realities. His electoral base remains wary of foreign wars, and his approval ratings have declined ahead of the upcoming midterm congressional elections in November. A Washington Post poll conducted with ABC News and Ipsos indicated that 60 per cent of Americans disapprove of his performance, while support stands at 39 per cent.
Any miscalculation in a war against Iran could cost Trump and the Republican Party their congressional majority, potentially reducing him to a lame duck for the remainder of his presidency.
Iran First and Last
In this context, prospects for political negotiation are narrowing in favour of escalation. This is attributed to the approach of President Trump and his team, who prioritise power over international law, and to what is described as the recklessness of Israeli leadership pursuing theological ambitions under the banner of divine promise, supported by Zionist evangelical movements.
A war against Iran would not be a conflict confined to a single state. It would represent, according to this view, an assault on what remains of international law, state sovereignty and the cultural and civilisational identity of Eastern nations, which are perceived as targets of Western military and cultural dominance.
Should such a war succeed, it could open the Middle East further to Israeli expansion under religious justification, with violence framed in theological terms rather than rational calculation.
This places a heavy burden on Arab and Muslim states, assigning them historical responsibility to prevent such a conflict. If war were to erupt, and this remains a real possibility, its flames could extend beyond Iran’s borders, with consequences that may prove difficult to contain and deeply destabilising for the region.
