After the Zionist–American Attack on Iran: What Comes Next?

The Middle East has recently witnessed a series of pivotal events that have reshaped the rules of engagement between Iran, Israel, and the United States. This began in May 2024 with the helicopter crash that killed Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian under circumstances described as “mysterious,” and followed by political and security escalation in the country.

This coincided with the targeting of the Iranian consulate in Syria and the subsequent Iranian response known as Operation “True Promise,” culminating in the assassination of the head of Hamas’s political bureau Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, followed by the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah—a development viewed as a direct attempt to strike at the core of Tehran’s regional allied network.

Statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Nasrallah constituted a “central influence” in the regional decision-making equation, and that his elimination would disrupt Iran’s system, reflected an Israeli approach focused on targeting political and military centers of gravity as a prelude to weakening Iran strategically.

The confrontation reached its peak in a 12-day direct war between Israel and Iran within a highly volatile regional environment following the weakening of Tehran’s allies in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen. This unfolded amid U.S.–British–Israeli military coordination and battlefield shifts in Syria that limited Iran’s margin of maneuver.

Iran’s nuclear programme, which has been stopped under a fatwa dating back to the 1990s, clearly has nothing to do with this conflict. The United States accepts Israel’s nuclear capabilities as a reality but rejects Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities—even within a civilian framework—reflecting concerns related to regional balance of power rather than nuclear proliferation.

Previous phases witnessed indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran, accompanied by economic pressure and internal protests supported by Israel and the United States, aimed at toppling the regime. Donald Trump justified potential strikes on Iran by claiming the U.S. administration would act if violence were used against protesters. Clearly the strikes had nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear programme and everything to do with the positions of the Iranian regime and its support for organisations confronting Israel.

During the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, the United States claimed that it had struck Iran’s nuclear programme. As negotiations stalled, escalation moved to a direct military level, including the targeting of military sites and senior leadership figures, alongside growing rhetoric about targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The signing of security and military agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, in addition to the use of U.S. bases in the Gulf for military operations, has effectively inserted these states into the mutual deterrence equation.

From an Iranian perspective, intercepting Iranian missiles or drones directed at Israel constitutes direct involvement in the conflict, placing these countries within the potential target circle in any open confrontation. This shift raises security risks in the Gulf and threatens the stability of energy markets and vital maritime routes.

But despite the military and political pressures, Iran possesses several strategic strengths:

1. Geographic location: Overseeing the Strait of Hormuz and indirectly influencing Bab al-Mandab.
2. Military capabilities: An advanced ballistic missile system, long-range drones, and expertise in asymmetric warfare.
3. Regional allied network: Network extending into Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen meaning an ability to open multiple fronts.
4. Institutional cohesion: Particularly the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a pillar of security, the military, and the economy.
5. Capacity for prolonged conflict management: Reliance on attrition strategies and calibrated responses.

These factors make a rapid decisive strike or regime change in Iran highly complex and risky.

Reports of targeting the Supreme Leader and eliminating senior figures have now proved accurate, so we can imagine the following potential scenarios:

1. Comprehensive regional escalation: A direct Iranian response against Israel and U.S. bases, potentially opening the door to a large-scale war.
2. Long-game strategy: Adoption of indirect and gradual responses across multiple arenas.
3. Activation of simultaneous fronts: Mobilising Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza simultaneously to impose a comprehensive deterrence equation.
4. Rapid internal reorganisation: Temporary disruption followed by an orderly transfer of authority within the regime structure.
5. Internationalisation of the confrontation: Engagement of major international powers either to contain escalation or to reshape the balance of power.

This confrontation can also be read within the broader context of U.S.–Chinese competition. Iran is considered a key energy partner for China and a member of alternative international arrangements to the Western-led system. From this perspective, weakening Iran may be seen as part of a broader strategy to contain Chinese influence, alongside draining Russia’s resources through Ukraine and reshaping tension environments in Asia.

Israel, according to this assessment, seeks to dismantle the Iran-linked “unity of arenas” by separating the different fronts and weakening each arena individually before transitioning to direct confrontation with Tehran with the help of regional alliances.

Any wide-scale escalation between Israel and Iran cannot be separated from its direct and indirect repercussions on Europe at the security, economic, and political levels. Key potential impacts include:

1. Energy security and rising prices: Europe partially depends on stable energy flows from the Gulf. Any threat to the Strait of Hormuz or escalation affecting navigation in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab would raise global oil and gas prices. Amid EU efforts to diversify energy sources after the Ukraine war, a new regional war would increase inflation and production and transport costs.
2. Supply chain and trade disruptions: Gulf and Red Sea maritime routes are vital for trade between Asia and Europe. Prolonged disruption would affect supply chains, delay industrial shipments, and increase insurance and shipping costs.
3. New waves of refugees: If the war expands in the region—and particularly if it includes Lebanon or Iraq or leads to further security collapses—Europe may face a new wave of refugees. Previous experience with Syrian refugees showed that major instability in the Levant has political and social repercussions within the EU and fuels the rise of right-wing currents.
4. Security threats: European interests in the Middle East may become targets if some European states become militarily or logistically involved in the conflict.
5. Internal EU divisions: Divergent positions are likely to emerge among European states regarding the nature of engagement. Some may clearly support the U.S.–Israeli position, while others may push for a more balanced diplomatic path to avoid direct economic and security consequences.
6. Decline of Europe’s diplomatic role: A slide into full-scale war would weaken Europe’s ability to act as a mediator, especially if diplomatic tracks are marginalized in favor of military resolution, reinforcing the limits of European strategic autonomy in Middle Eastern affairs under U.S. dominance.

Based on available indicators, most of Europe are not a direct party to the confrontation but would be among the most affected.

Key risks include: a new energy shock, mounting internal economic pressure, and rising polarisation between currents supporting escalation and those advocating de-escalation.

Accordingly, major European capitals are likely to seek containment of escalation and prevention of a prolonged war to safeguard their economic and social stability, even while remaining committed to the strategic alliance with the United States.

Indicators suggest that the region stands at a pivotal stage characterised by:

• An increased probability of sliding into a broader regional confrontation.
• Difficulty in achieving rapid regime change in Iran through a concentrated strike.
• Transition of the conflict from proxy warfare to direct engagement.
• Growing influence of international competition in shaping escalation or containment trajectories.

Thus, the course of events in the coming period will be determined by the parties’ ability to regulate deterrences and by the readiness of international powers to intervene—either to prevent comprehensive explosion or to reshape the balance of power in the region according to their strategic interests.