What Could Happen Next in the Israel-Iran Conflict After U.S. Involvement
The Israel-Iran conflict, which escalated dramatically with Israel's unilateral strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets on June 13, 2025, entered a new and volatile phase when the United States directly joined the war on June 21, 2025, bombing three key Iranian nuclear sites—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan.
This unprecedented U.S. intervention, described by President Donald Trump as having “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, has raised critical questions about the conflict’s trajectory. Drawing on reputable sources, this article explores potential scenarios for what could happen next, considering military, diplomatic, and regional dynamics.
Military Escalation and Iranian Retaliation
Iran has vowed to retaliate against both Israel and the United States, with its Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning that the U.S. strikes “will have everlasting consequences” and that Tehran “reserves all options” for response. Iran’s missile arsenal, estimated to include over 3,000 missiles with ranges capable of striking Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, poses a significant threat. Recent Iranian missile barrages targeting Israel, including the use of hypersonic Fattah-1 missiles, demonstrate its capacity to sustain offensive operations despite Israel’s air superiority over Tehran.
Iran could target U.S. military bases in the region, where over 40,000 American troops are stationed, potentially drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict. Analysts warn that Iran might also attempt to disrupt global energy markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes, as suggested by Iranian parliamentarian Behnam Saeedi. Such a move could trigger a global economic crisis and prompt further U.S. military action to secure the waterway. Additionally, Iran-backed militias, such as the Houthis in Yemen or Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, have threatened to attack U.S. targets if Washington remains involved, potentially widening the conflict to a regional war.
However, Iran’s ability to sustain a prolonged conflict is uncertain. Israel’s earlier strikes degraded Iran’s air defenses, and the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites may have further strained its military infrastructure. Experts, including Andreas Krieg from King’s College London, argue that air power alone cannot decisively defeat Iran, suggesting that Tehran may opt for asymmetric tactics like cyberattacks, sabotage, or terrorism to counter its conventional disadvantages.
Diplomatic Efforts and Challenges
Despite the escalation, diplomatic channels remain open, though prospects for de-escalation are slim. Talks in Geneva on June 20, 2025, between Iranian and European officials were described as “tense but positive,” but Iran has firmly rejected ending its uranium enrichment program, calling it a “bold red line.” President Trump has allowed a two-week window for diplomacy before considering further strikes, but his demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and a permanent halt to uranium enrichment has been dismissed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “threatening and ridiculous.”
A senior Iranian official indicated that diplomacy could resume if Trump orders Israel to halt its strikes, suggesting a potential off-ramp. However, Israel’s insistence on continuing its campaign until Iran’s nuclear threat is eliminated, coupled with Trump’s public support for the operation, complicates negotiations. European, Turkish, and Arab mediators are attempting to broker a cease-fire, but a European diplomatic effort on June 20 failed to yield results. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed no radiological leaks from the strikes, which may provide a narrow window for renewed nuclear talks, though Iran’s resolve to rebuild its program could harden post-conflict.
Regional and Global Implications
The U.S. entry into the conflict has heightened fears of a broader Middle East war. Russia, a strategic partner of Iran, has condemned the strikes, with President Vladimir Putin asserting that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, a claim echoed by the IAEA. Russia could provide Iran with technical support for its nuclear program or military aid, complicating Western efforts. China, while calling for de-escalation, may seek to position itself as a mediator to enhance its regional influence.
The conflict has already strained U.S. alliances. Congressional lawmakers from both parties have questioned the legality of Trump’s strikes, arguing that military action against Iran requires Congressional authorization. Domestic opposition, including from groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, warns that the U.S. risks repeating the mistakes of the Iraq War. Meanwhile, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the U.S. intervention as historic, urging Trump to take further action against Iran’s remaining targets.
Iran’s internal stability is another critical factor. The conflict has displaced tens of thousands in Tehran, with reports of civilian casualties fueling public anger. While Khamenei retains control, the regime faces domestic dissent, as seen in protests two years ago. A prolonged war could exacerbate these tensions, potentially leading to civil unrest or even regime collapse, though experts like Aaron David Miller argue that regime change is unlikely without a ground invasion, which neither Israel nor the U.S. appears willing to undertake.
Potential Outcomes
Limited War with Strategic Setbacks: If Iran’s retaliation is contained and diplomacy gains traction, the conflict could subside with Iran’s nuclear program delayed by years. Israel and the U.S. would claim a tactical victory, but Iran’s resolve to pursue nuclear weapons may strengthen, as suggested by RAND expert Raphael Cohen.
Regional Conflagration: An Iranian attack on U.S. bases or the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a broader war involving Iran’s proxies and U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that U.S. strikes on Iran would plunge Washington into a regional conflict, with unpredictable consequences.
Diplomatic Resolution: A cease-fire brokered by neutral parties could halt hostilities, potentially reviving nuclear talks. However, this would require significant concessions, such as Iran retaining limited enrichment rights and Israel halting its strikes, which both sides currently reject.
Prolonged Attrition: If neither side achieves a decisive victory, the conflict could devolve into a war of attrition, draining both economies and infrastructure. Iran’s missile stockpile and Israel’s air superiority suggest both can sustain strikes for weeks, but civilian tolls—430 deaths in Iran and 24 in Israel as of June 22—could pressure leaders to seek an exit.
Conclusion
The U.S. entry into the Israel-Iran conflict marks a dangerous turning point, with the potential for both limited strategic gains and catastrophic escalation. Iran’s retaliation, the success of diplomatic efforts, and the actions of regional actors will shape the next phase. While Trump’s strikes have set back Iran’s nuclear program, the long-term outcome depends on whether the parties can find a path to de-escalation or become entrenched in a wider war. As former U.S. General Wesley Clark noted, air campaigns alone rarely achieve lasting political objectives, suggesting that the conflict’s resolution may hinge on diplomacy as much as military might.
Kosta Gushterov
Reporter at Coindoo
Kosta joined the team in 2021 and quickly established himself with his thirst for knowledge, incredible dedication, and analytical thinking. He not only covers a wide range of current topics, but also writes excellent reviews, PR articles, and educational materials. His articles are also quoted by other news agencies.
