As of press time, the military strikes launched by Israel and the United States against Iran had persisted for over nine days. Airstrikes and missile attacks continued across multiple regions within Iran, Israel, and the Persian Gulf. According to multiple media reports, since the conflict erupted, the US-Israel coalition has targeted thousands of military and infrastructure sites in Iran. Iran has retaliated by launching multiple waves of missiles and drones toward several countries in the region.
This conflict rapidly escalated within a short timeframe, spreading to a broader region. However, based on media reports and the extent of damage to military facilities on both sides, Iran has clearly suffered the destruction of most of its military equipment under the powerful military force of the U.S. and Israel, including air and missile strikes. Nevertheless, since the U.S. has not deployed ground troops for direct attacks, the development of Iran’s political situation remains highly uncertain. The intertwining of energy supply chains, regional security dynamics, and great power competition means the war’s impact extends far beyond the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Against the backdrop of escalating hostilities, a core question emerges: How will this war conclude?
Why did the conflict erupt?
The U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran were not impulsive decisions by President Trump, but rather the culmination of long-standing tensions. The backdrop stems primarily from three intertwined threads: the Iranian nuclear issue, proxy conflicts in the Middle East, and the long-term strategic competition over regional power dynamics.
For years, Israel has consistently viewed Iran’s nuclear program as a fundamental threat to its national security. For a nation significantly smaller in size and population than Iran, and perpetually operating in a hostile environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by its adversary would fundamentally alter the entire strategic balance. Consequently, Israel has consistently adopted an extremely hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear issue, repeatedly hinting at the possibility of military action to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
The United States has long sought to curb Iran’s nuclear program through sanctions, diplomatic negotiations, and intelligence operations. However, over a decade of diplomatic efforts has yielded limited results. While nuclear talks repeatedly stalled, Iran’s influence in the Middle East continued to expand. Organizations such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militias, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels all maintain varying degrees of close ties with Tehran. For Israel and the United States, these forces constitute a “network of proxies” spanning the Middle East, threatening regional security and control.
The ultimate trigger was the collapse of the third round of nuclear talks held in Geneva on February 26. For Washington and Tel Aviv, the possibility of resolving the nuclear issue through negotiations had significantly diminished. The failure of these talks symbolized the near exhaustion of diplomatic avenues.
In the early hours of February 28, the United States and Israel launched a massive airstrike operation dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” marking the formal outbreak of this long-simmering conflict.
Yet as hostilities unfolded, a perplexing question emerged: Was this war based on a coherent and well-defined strategic plan?
Washington’s Strategic Ambiguity
In the conflict’s early stages, the U.S. government’s stated justifications appeared inconsistent, reflecting internal divisions in Washington over the war’s objectives.
Secretary of State Rubio initially stated that U.S. intervention primarily aimed to support Israeli military operations and protect American bases in the Middle East from retaliatory attacks. Yet shortly thereafter, during a meeting with the German Chancellor, Trump claimed his decision to use force was largely intuitive, based on his belief that Iran might be preparing a preemptive strike.
It took several days for the administration to gradually consolidate its official narrative around “destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” Yet even then, contradictory signals persisted within Washington. During the conflict’s first week, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives publicly declared: “We are not at war, nor do we intend to be at war.”
These contradictory statements inevitably raised external doubts about whether the U.S. had entered a high-risk conflict without a comprehensive strategic consensus.
When the political objectives of a war remain poorly defined, a more fundamental question emerges: What exactly should this war achieve, and under what circumstances would it be declared over?
Iran’s Internal Dilemma
Following the outbreak of conflict, signs of internal discord emerged within Iran’s decision-making circles. Reports indicate that Iranian President Pezeskian publicly apologized for Iran’s airstrikes against Gulf nations, only to retract his statement shortly after facing criticism from domestic hardliners. Concurrently, air raid alerts and air defense interceptions occurred in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other locations. This contradictory messaging has been interpreted by many observers as evidence of significant discord between Iran’s government and its military establishment.
This situation is closely tied to Iran’s long-established military command structure. Multiple reports indicate that former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei had delegated portions of operational command authority to regional military districts during his lifetime. Some local commanders even possessed the autonomy to select targets or launch missiles independently.
This decentralized structure was originally designed to enhance wartime survivability, ensuring military operations could continue even if central leadership suffered casualties. However, this system also introduces new risks. When command authority is dispersed across multiple tiers, local commanders acting under insufficient information or ambiguous political signals may lead to miscalculations and escalation of conflict, creating a disconnect between political and military directives.
More critically, the recent “decapitation strikes” targeting Iran’s leadership by the U.S. and Israel have intensified this uncertainty. Multiple senior Revolutionary Guard commanders have been killed in succession, including the Supreme Leader himself in an early airstrike. While Iran’s military operations have not immediately collapsed, the rift between its political and military command structures may be widening.
Iran’s Counterstrike
In terms of military strength, the United States and Israel undeniably hold overwhelming advantages in technology, intelligence capabilities, and advanced weapon systems. For Iran to attempt to defeat its adversaries through conventional military confrontation on the battlefield is virtually impossible. Tehran clearly recognizes this, hence its military actions increasingly resemble an “asymmetric response”: not pursuing decisive battlefield victories, but instead seeking to raise the adversary’s costs of sustained warfare through multiple means.
For instance, Iran is well aware of its geographical and military limitations. While the U.S. mainland lies thousands of miles away, making direct strikes difficult, U.S. military bases scattered across the Middle East—particularly facilities in Arab nations—fall well within the range of Iranian missiles and drones. Thus, attacks on targets in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, and Iraq carry not only military significance but also send clear political signals.
Beyond military strikes, Iran’s other key bargaining chip is the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway is one of the world’s most critical energy transport routes, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil is shipped to global markets. Any disruption to shipping would rapidly destabilize global energy markets. Iran need not fully block the strait—merely creating a credible threat or sporadic interference could drive up oil prices and heighten market anxiety, compelling the international community to focus on the conflict and seek de-escalation.
However, this strategy of escalating risks to exert political pressure carries significant costs. Tehran may hope Gulf states will pressure Washington under energy and security pressures, but if attacks escalate, the outcome could backfire: rather than aligning with Iran, these nations may instead increase reliance on U.S. and Israeli military protection due to security threats. Long-term, this dynamic could further erode Iran’s diplomatic maneuvering space in the region, deepening its isolation within the Middle East’s political landscape.
Chain Reaction in the Middle East
Conflicts in the Middle East invariably carry significant spillover effects. Should hostilities escalate further, neighboring nations and non-state armed groups could easily become entangled, transforming what began as a bilateral dispute into a regional crisis. The Persian Gulf region, home to vital energy transport routes and military bases, renders the entire area particularly sensitive during times of conflict.
The current tensions have already begun affecting multiple nations with complex relationships with Iran. Iran has launched missiles and drones toward Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. These nations maintain cooperative ties with Iran while preserving delicate political distance: Qatar shares one of the world’s largest offshore natural gas fields with Iran; the UAE has long served as a vital trade corridor for Iran; and Oman has repeatedly played a key mediating role in past U.S.-Iran negotiations.
Precisely for this reason, these nations have traditionally sought to maintain a certain equilibrium between the United States and Iran. However, should hostilities continue to escalate, they may find it difficult to sustain this neutral stance. When both energy security and national security are threatened simultaneously, Gulf states will likely be forced to choose between safeguarding their interests and yielding to geopolitical pressures. At that point, a conflict originally confined to the United States, Israel, and Iran could gradually evolve into a broader regional confrontation.
China’s Dilemma
Despite Iran’s longstanding classification as part of the “anti-Western camp,” Tehran received virtually no substantive support when war actually broke out. Partner nations including Russia, China, and North Korea largely confined themselves to diplomatic statements without taking direct military action.
Among nations maintaining ties with Iran, China’s stance has drawn particular attention.
Beijing has long been one of Iran’s largest oil buyers. Under Western sanctions, China often secures Iranian oil at lower prices, fostering a degree of economic interdependence between the two countries. Moreover, China’s energy structure relies heavily on the Middle East. Overall, over half of China’s oil and a significant portion of its natural gas originate from the region. Iranian and Venezuelan oil account for approximately 13% and 4% of China’s imports, respectively. Should war disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, China’s energy security would be directly threatened.
However, at the same time, Trump’s visit to China under these circumstances and his public criticism of U.S. military actions may have repercussions. Moreover, Beijing has shown a tendency this year to adopt a more conciliatory and proactive stance in handling Sino-U.S. relations. Therefore, even if Beijing expresses sympathy for Iran diplomatically, it must exercise restraint in actual policy, avoiding direct criticism of the U.S. and Israel, let alone providing tangible assistance.
Allies Absent
This situation reflects a reality: Iran’s relationships with these nations are largely based on mutual interests and geopolitical cooperation, rather than genuine military alliances. Many countries maintain ties with Iran primarily for energy, geopolitical, or counterbalancing purposes against the West. Yet when conflict escalates to the point of potential direct confrontation with the United States and Israel, few nations are willing to shoulder the risks.
Take Russia, for instance. While Moscow publicly condemned the U.S.-Israel military operations and called for diplomatic solutions, it showed no inclination toward direct military intervention. For Russia, the costs of direct confrontation with the U.S. or Israel in the Middle East would be prohibitively high, yielding limited strategic gains.
Other nations closely allied with Iran have adopted similar stances. While North Korea has issued strong political condemnations of U.S.-Israeli actions, it has provided no tangible military support. Latin American allies, grappling with their own domestic instability, are ill-equipped to offer meaningful geopolitical assistance.
Overall, these nations’ responses have largely remained diplomatic, revealing Iran’s profound isolation in terms of genuine security alliances. This restraint is not accidental but a calculated strategic choice. For these “anti-Western bloc” allies, direct involvement in a war between Iran and the U.S.-Israel axis carries immense risks and could trigger uncontrollable global conflict—costs far outweighing any potential gains.
Within this framework, despite Iran’s numerous diplomatic partners, it would likely bear the brunt of military and political pressure almost entirely alone should war erupt.
The U.S.-Israel Strategic Calculus
As hostilities escalate, external attention increasingly focuses on two critical questions: Will the U.S. deploy additional ground forces? Could the Iranian regime collapse as a result?
Current indications suggest that the U.S. and Israel’s strategy resembles a high-intensity “pressure campaign” rather than an immediate full-scale invasion aimed at regime change.
On the energy front, Iran has attempted to leverage the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip. However, the U.S. has pledged to provide escort services for oil tankers and insurance arrangements for crude oil shipments to mitigate energy supply risks. In other words, Washington seeks to neutralize Iran’s most critical economic weapon.
Politically, Trump has repeatedly stated publicly that he hopes for regime change within Iran, rather than direct overthrow by external forces. He has even called on the Iranian people to “take over their own government” after the conflict, describing this as potentially “the only opportunity in generations.”
However, this strategy also carries significant costs. Cheap drones can force adversaries to continuously launch expensive interceptor missiles. Only once the ammunition stockpiles of an air defense system are significantly depleted can the real striking force potentially emerge. According to estimates by the Washington think tank CSIS, the daily military cost for the U.S. forces in the current conflict approaches $900 million. Using expensive missiles to intercept low-cost drones may be effective in the short term, but it is difficult to sustain in the long run.
Can the Iranian regime be overthrown?
Historical experience shows that airstrikes alone have rarely succeeded in toppling a well-armed regime.
In 2003, the United States deployed massive ground forces to invade Iraq before toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. Similarly, the downfall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 occurred only through the combined effects of NATO airstrikes and ground offensives by anti-government forces.
Therefore, Washington currently appears to favor internal regime change within Iran. Yet this scenario carries significant uncertainty. However, the successful coordinated precision strikes by the U.S. and Israel targeting Iranian leadership at the war’s outset marked the first conflict in history primarily focused on eliminating government leaders and destroying military infrastructure. Experts remain divided on whether this approach can achieve political change without occupation.
For Iran, however, the objective of this war may not be to “defeat” the adversary, but rather to ensure the “survival” of its leadership to continue governing. As long as the regime does not collapse entirely, Tehran still hopes to restore its military and political influence in the future. Whether this is wishful thinking will likely become apparent soon.
Should the conflict ultimately lack a decisive outcome, the Middle East may revert to a familiar dynamic: nuclear issues, economic sanctions, and regional power struggles intertwined, while U.S.-Iran relations shift toward prolonged proxy conflicts, sanctions standoffs, and cyber warfare—creating a cold confrontation characterized by “no war, no peace; talks amid disruption.”
Looking back at history, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Kosovo, the United States has repeatedly become entangled in protracted and complex wars in the Middle East and surrounding regions. Reality has repeatedly demonstrated that starting a war is often far easier than ending one. If the conflict drags on, the real test may only just be beginning—not only for Iran, but equally for Washington. May the people affected by war find peace.