US media outlets are increasingly filled with stories and op-ed columns drawing comparisons to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, hailing “a dazzling series of victories” by Israel. These narratives often portray Israel, a small state, as having launched “brilliant” attacks on Iran, a country of 92 million, targeting its top leadership and nuclear scientists. 

In the context of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government's genocidal campaign in Gaza, these Israeli strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a courageous war cry in a righteous battle against a so-called evil regime in Tehran.  

Yet Israel, unlike other states in the region, has nuclear weapons, receives state-of-the-art weaponry from Washington, and is shielded by sophisticated American air defences. Should the US formally enter this ongoing war, the consequences could be far more destabilising than many in the West anticipate.   

“A potential US entry into the Israel-Iran war would mark a pivotal turning point—not just for the trajectory of the conflict, but for the entire Middle East and international order,” which could fundamentally reshape the Muslim-Arab majority region, says Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King's College London and director of MENA Analytica. 

“It would embolden hardline actors across the region and possibly fracture the nascent détente that the Gulf states have been trying to build with Iran,” he tells TRT World, suggesting it could force key platers—especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman— to choose sides. 

Krieg adds that US involvement could derail ongoing Gulf-led diplomatic efforts, particularly the Qatar-Oman initiative aimed at reviving nuclear negotiations.  

If the US were to intervene, Iran’s weakened regional allies in its Axis of Resistance, a coalition of Shia forces from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah, might be reactivated in a desperate bid to stretch US capacity across multiple fronts.  

“What began as a shadow war is evolving into a protracted, multi-domain confrontation with no clear exit—but with immense risks of regional implosion,” he adds. 

RelatedTRT Global - Iran-Israel standoff: Is the Mideast nearing a point of no return?

Though Iran is currently fending off Israeli attacks, direct US involvement could cause Tehran to gradually lose ground, says Sergei Markov, a leading Russian political analyst and former advisor to President Vladimir Putin. He argues that Israeli strikes so far appear more effective than Iran’s responses. 

Still, Markov notes that much uncertainty surrounds the conflict, not least because of the improbability of a US ground invasion and the unpredictable reaction of Iranian society. “Some parts of the Iranian population have radical views and are ready to fight,” Markov tells TRT World. 

Stability or more tension?

Matthew Bryza, a former US diplomat and senior official in President George W. Bush's administration during the Iraq War, doubts that President Trump would order a full-scale ground invasion of Iran. He reminds us that the American public has little appetite for new foreign interventions. 

Instead, Bryza envisions a more limited operation: targeted strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility using bunker-busters bombs, paired with continued logistical support for Israeli air campaigns. Trump “hopes” that after such attacks, “the war would be over,” he explains. 

“If Israel and the US together were able to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities and prospects in the future, we would see a more stable Middle East with a lower risk of nuclear catastrophe,” Bryza tells TRT World. 

But not all experts share this optimism. Nuclear analysts warn that bombing Fordow alone might not substantially delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Thousands of Iranian scientists could continue advancing the program, despite setbacks. 

“Military action is unlikely to be so definitive,” wrote James Acton, a director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in a recent New York Times piece. 

If the US and Israel continue down the military path, hoping to trigger regime change in Tehran or spark a popular uprising, they risk provoking the opposite: a prolonged and messy war with no guarantee of political transformation.  

So, what happens if military operations fail to bring down the Iranian leadership?  

“Short of a new Iranian revolution, we will see enormous tension after such possible US-Israel strikes,” says Bryza. “If the current clerical regime remains in Tehran,” it can take measures like blocking the strategic Strait of Hormuz and resorting to hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets in the Middle East. 

If such escalations lead to Iranian attacks on US military bases, Washington could be drawn into deeper involvement, a move Bryza describes as a “huge mistake,” potentially entangling the US in another full-scale Middle East war.  

Krieg concurs that surrender or disarmament is unlikely. “The Islamic Republic’s core identity is shaped by resistance and survival under siege,” he says. “If it perceives an existential threat, the regime may escalate drastically—including asymmetric attacks on US forces, strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure,” he says, adding that “Iran’s leadership understands that national collapse would unleash chaos, and they would rather escalate than submit.” 

Short of deploying weapons of mass destruction, Bryza believes the US and Israel cannot force Iran into “unconditional surrender.” 

Global repercussions 

In a world already rattled by war in Ukraine and Gaza, a new conflict in Iran would have far-reaching effects. Krieg warns that a US-led strike could trigger a global oil shock, especially if Iran attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes. 

“Financial markets would be rattled by geopolitical instability. A wider war could disrupt global supply chains and empower revisionist actors—Russia and China—in their respective spheres of influence,” says Krieg.

Domestically, Trump’s Iran war ambitions are also sowing discord within his own MAGA base. Pro-Trump figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have publicly questioned the wisdom of war with Iran, revealing a rift between pro-Zionist interventionists and anti-war conservatives.  

Beyond strengthening US rivals like China and Russia, “such a conflict would undermine Trump’s ‘America First’ vision,” says Krieg, “pulling the US into another Middle Eastern quagmire and weakening its position in the Indo-Pacific.” 

Bryza echoes this concern. A war with Iran could provoke a severe political backlash among Trump’s supporters, many of whom are staunchly anti-interventionist, which could cause a political liability for both Trump and the Republican Party, he says. 

Still, Trump may not be deterred. Knowing he cannot run for a third term, he may believe his base will follow him regardless. But if an Iranian missile strike were to kill over a hundred American soldiers at a US base, warns Markov, it could ignite a major public backlash, one that even Trump may not be able to contain.