American President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside American Vice President J.D. Vance (left), American Secretary of State Marco Rubio (second from right), and American Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (right), from the White House in Washington, on June 21, 2025. (Credit: Carlos Barria/AFP)
Since Oct. 7, the region has repeatedly awakened to events that felt like the Middle East was plunging into an abyss. Each time, it seemed the crisis could not worsen. Each time, it did.
The region has now entered one of its most dangerous, explosive and unpredictable phases in decades.
The delay in escalation was deceptive — a tactic by the United States to prepare its strike against Iran while maintaining some element of surprise. President Donald Trump has made what is likely the most consequential decision of his presidency: to officially launch a war against Iran.
Trump, who had long criticized U.S. entanglements in the Middle East, does not appear to want a prolonged conflict. Instead, he seeks a quick deal. By targeting Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, the goal was to cripple Tehran’s atomic program and force it to capitulate — a massive blow meant to bring the regime to its knees without toppling it outright.
The strategy depends on two key unknowns.
First: Were the U.S. strikes effective enough to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Is the Fordow site — deep underground — fully out of commission? And if so, does Iran still have the capacity, through secret sites, to enrich uranium and pursue a bomb?
Second: How will Iran respond? Facing the combined might of the U.S. and Israel, will Tehran choose to negotiate quickly to ensure the regime’s survival, or instead provoke a wider escalation to draw Washington deeper into the conflict and weaken Trump’s domestic and global position?
On the first point, a propaganda war is already underway. Washington is claiming success, while Tehran insists damage was limited. On the second, Iran has shown mixed signals. It initially avoided expanding the conflict, hoping to deter further U.S. involvement, while warning it could mobilize regional allies, threaten the Strait of Hormuz, or target American interests.
Tehran may even consider strikes against Gulf monarchies — key U.S. allies — but doing so could backfire diplomatically. For now, most Arab states remain publicly aligned with Iran, or at least neutral.
Iran’s dilemma: Escalation or survival
Cornered but not yet broken, the Iranian regime must now choose: pursue a long, dangerous escalation to strengthen its hand in negotiations, or seek a deal that could weaken its authority at home and diminish its regional influence.
The more forcefully Iran retaliates, the more likely the U.S. will escalate — and that could make regime survival the central issue of the war. Hezbollah, Tehran’s most powerful regional ally, would almost certainly be drawn into the conflict.
The regime appears trapped between two bleak options: slow death or suicide. An agreement may sap its legitimacy and regional standing, while an all-out confrontation risks destruction through targeted U.S. and Israeli strikes.
Iran may attempt what it often does: a middle path designed to preserve appearances. It could retaliate without crossing red lines and later enter talks, so long as the negotiations don’t resemble surrender. If its nuclear program has indeed been wiped out, that scenario becomes more plausible, although neither Trump nor Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is known for offering face-saving exits.
If the regime chooses a suicidal path, the U.S. faces a difficult road ahead, not just with public opinion at home, where the intervention is controversial, but also with its strategic allies. If Iran refuses to fold, what is Washington’s exit strategy? Eliminate Khamenei? Strike power centers and hope the regime crumbles or someone steps up to sign a deal?
Aftermath and global implications
Even in the event of a clear U.S. military victory, the aftermath remains uncertain. If the regime surrenders to preserve itself, what would the impact be on the Iranian people? The risk of harsh internal repression and ensuing chaos — with regional spillover — would be high.
If the regime does not surrender, the conflict could spiral further out of control.
Beyond the Middle East, the U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may have broader global consequences. Authoritarian regimes worldwide might draw the conclusion that the only guarantee of survival — regardless of their ties to Washington — is to develop nuclear weapons.
In a world governed by force rather than diplomacy, the message from this war may be clear: only military power protects. And only time will reveal the full cost of a war launched in the name of “security” by the region’s most powerful player.
