After weeks of hesitation, US President Donald Trump has made a defining move in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. On Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities, at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, marking a significant escalation and Washington’s formal entry into the war. With this action, the US has shifted the regional balance and introduced a new layer of uncertainty into the Middle East.
Here’s a breakdown of what could happen next, and what each scenario means for the region, and the world.
Iran strikes back
Iran’s capacity for direct retaliation is limited. While it maintains a substantial ballistic missile arsenal, Israel has already destroyed more than a third of Iran’s launchers, and stockpiles are dwindling. Some estimates suggest Iran has fired close to 700 missiles since the war began, out of an original inventory of around 2,000.
The last time the US struck Iran directly, when it assassinated Qassem Soleimani in 2020, Iran’s response was largely symbolic: a missile barrage on US bases in Iraq that caused no American deaths. The current situation may repeat that pattern.
Trump has warned Tehran that any further attacks will be met with even greater force: “Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
This leaves Iran with two options: stage a low-risk symbolic retaliation, or target Israel via proxies like Hezbollah, while avoiding direct confrontation with the US.
Iran backs down
Before the US strikes, Iran had signalled willingness to negotiate, but only if Israel ceased its attacks. Now that Washington has entered the fray, a diplomatic backchannel may open, particularly if Iran wants to prevent further military degradation and internal unrest.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains adamant: he wants all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure destroyed and has expanded the offensive to include Iran’s oil and gas terminals. His goal, according to many analysts, is not just containment but regime destabilisation.
This puts Iran’s leadership in a bind. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though severely weakened, is unlikely to capitulate without some way to save face. The Iran-Iraq War offers a precedent: Khomeini agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire only after enormous casualties and US involvement. He called the decision “worse than drinking poison.”
Limited US engagement
Though Trump has now intervened militarily, the scale and duration of U.S. involvement remain uncertain. Recent polling by The Economist/YouGov shows that 60% of Americans oppose US entry into the Israel-Iran conflict, including a majority of Republicans. That political reality is likely to influence Trump’s next steps, especially with an election looming.
If the strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan achieve their goals – crippling Iran’s nuclear capability- without provoking a wider war, Trump may enjoy domestic approval for having acted decisively but proportionately. But if Iran retaliates against US assets, or if US forces are drawn into a prolonged conflict, public support could turn sharply.
The scope of success will also depend on whether the US succeeded in destroying Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles, reportedly 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched material, and its centrifuge infrastructure. If those were not fully destroyed, Iran may rebuild quickly, and with more resolve than before.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
