WASHINGTON—The possibility of direct military conflict between the United States and Iran appeared to escalate this weekend as negotiations stalled and the U.S. Military continued positioning forces in the Middle East, according to experienced foreign-policy observers. Despite a history of caution regarding public predictions about war, analysts are increasingly focused on potential scenarios as the likelihood of U.S. Strikes against Iran grows.
President Donald Trump and his advisors are assessing the potential response from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the substantial U.S. Military presence in the region, while Iranian leaders are undertaking a similar evaluation. The situation is complicated by a recent shift in the strategic landscape, marked by Israeli military operations in Lebanon and against Iranian strategic air defenses, the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, a collapsing Iranian economy, and the suppression of nationwide anti-regime protests, as reported by foreign policy analysts.
Several predictions regarding the unfolding situation have emerged. First, analysts believe Khamenei is unlikely to offer a substantial last-minute deal. The Iranian regime’s diminished power over the past year and a half, coupled with internal unrest and economic hardship, suggests it is incapable of meeting the minimum requirement of a verifiable commitment to zero uranium enrichment, even with complete sanctions relief. Iranian diplomats have reportedly focused on the nuclear program and employed delaying tactics in negotiations.
Second, while Trump has previously signaled flexibility in negotiations, he may now be unwilling to accept a weak deal. Earlier in his second term, Trump publicly denounced advisors advocating a hawkish stance toward Iran and even canceled security protection for individuals targeted by the regime. In April, the administration indicated a willingness to consider a deal similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Tehran’s continued delays have altered the calculus. However, given Trump’s past inclinations, a moderate level of confidence is placed in this prediction.
A third prediction centers on the potential for Israeli intervention. Should Trump appear willing to accept a weak deal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may preemptively strike Iran, mirroring a similar action taken last June when a new nuclear deal appeared imminent. Trump did not explicitly discourage the Israeli strike and ultimately authorized strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites. Given Israel’s recent tactical successes and the upcoming election in Israel, Netanyahu may seek to replicate this approach. However, the possibility remains that Trump could issue a “red light” against such action, though his previous hedging suggests this is not guaranteed.
Analysts anticipate Trump will be presented with three strategic options: “Enforce,” “Degrade,” or “Remove.” “Enforce” would involve strikes against Iranian security forces responsible for suppressing protests, specifically targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Basij militia. “Degrade” would expand the target set to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile deployments, and related industrial facilities, potentially requiring repeated strikes every six to nine months. “Remove” would aim to decapitate the regime’s leadership and disrupt its command and control capabilities, though it would likely acknowledge the limitations of achieving regime change through air strikes alone.
While Trump has previously rejected aggressive military options, his prior commitment to enforcing “red lines” and avoiding the perception of weakness suggests he will likely choose the “Enforce” option. This decision would be a departure from recommendations from U.S. Central Command, which would likely favor the “Degrade” option. However, Trump’s history of impulsive decision-making introduces uncertainty into this prediction.
Following potential U.S. Strikes, analysts predict a largely symbolic response from Khamenei. Iran has historically responded to perceived provocations with actions designed to appear symmetrical, such as the performative attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar last year. A similar response, targeting U.S. Assets in the region, is anticipated. However, the possibility of miscalculation by Iranian leaders, demonstrated by previous direct attacks on Israel, cannot be ruled out.
If Khamenei miscalculates and orders an escalation beyond symbolism, Trump is expected to escalate to the “Degrade” option, but with a willingness to curtail the operation if Iran demonstrates deterrence. This approach would mirror Trump’s response last June, prioritizing a swift de-escalation.
The potential for renewed protests within Iran following U.S. Strikes is as well anticipated. Despite the regime’s brutal suppression of previous uprisings, the Iranian people have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to challenge the government. However, a resurgence of protests is likely to be met with mass violence by the regime.
Should Iranian protesters rise up again and face a violent crackdown, Trump is predicted to escalate further to the “Degrade” and “Remove” options. This scenario would present Trump with a defining challenge, forcing a response to both Iranian actions and the demand to maintain U.S. Credibility. The outcome of such a confrontation remains uncertain, with potential scenarios ranging from regime change to a protracted conflict with unpredictable consequences. The potential for escalation, including attacks on U.S. Allies and civilian infrastructure, remains a significant concern.
