Iran. Three possible scenarios in case Israel ultimately chooses to strike. First, The optimistic scenario.
The strike is an unqualified success. Iran's nuclear facilities suffer devastating blows and cease to function. All aircraft and pilots return home safely.
Israel doesn't stop after a single wave, launching multiple strikes to exploit Iran's inadequate air defenses and the weakened states of Hezbollah and Hamas, which are unable to respond. The result is several rounds of attacks that compound the damage.
Iran retaliates with missile strikes, supported by the Houthis in Yemen, but Israel's aerial defense network, bolstered by active US and allied support in the region, intercepts most of the projectiles, limiting the damage. Iran also targets US bases, prompting Washington to deepen its involvement. European allies follow suit with sweeping sanctions against Iran, aiming to ensure Tehran remains far from developing a nuclear weapon. Even China and Russia grudgingly align with the effort.
Iran's currency collapses, food shortages hit the markets, and protests erupt across the country. For the first time since the 2009 Green Movement, the regime faces a serious domestic challenge. External encouragement fuels the unrest, culminating in the fall of the ayatollahs' regime after 46 years.
A regional reshuffle
In this best-case scenario, Israel emerges victorious and finalizes an agreement to end the war in Gaza. Hostages are returned, Hamas leaders are expelled, and a new local leadership takes over in the Strip. Israel also signs normalization deals with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, potentially including Syria and Lebanon. With international criticism subsiding, Israel regains diplomatic traction globally and its economy rebounds.
In the second, middling scenario, Israel succeeds in partially achieving its objectives. Iran's nuclear facilities are seriously damaged but not destroyed. Unlike the operations in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), the Iranian program is only delayed, not dismantled.
Iran launches a wide-scale counterattack, unleashing its full arsenal of missiles and drones. Hundreds are fired at Israel over several days. Some are intercepted, but many hit their targets, causing significant damage. Israel responds, but its achievements are limited. Embassies around the world come under threat, and the government scrambles to protect Jews abroad amid a surge in antisemitism and global unrest triggered by soaring oil prices and disrupted maritime routes in the Persian Gulf.
Only isolated protests occur within Iran and are swiftly suppressed. The regime declares an open-ended war against Israel, pledging national resources to the fight. It also withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and seals off its nuclear facilities from international oversight. Western intelligence struggles to assess the extent of the damage or estimate how long the program will be delayed, many believe it's only about a year, raising concerns that the strike may have backfired.
In parts of the Arab world, riots break out in reaction to perceived Israeli aggression and Iranian missile strikes on their soil. Governments respond with force and publicly condemn Israel, fearing regional escalation. These states maintain or even deepen ties with Iran as a safeguard.
Strategic fog and mounting internal tension
Israel diverts its full attention to the Iranian front, uncertain whether the strike, meant to set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by years, will instead accelerate them. Contrary to promises made to US President Donald Trump, Israel fails to resolve the Gaza conflict, inviting growing international criticism. Domestically, dissent intensifies amid the unresolved hostage issue, fallen soldiers, a worsening reservist crisis, and a further spike in the cost of living.
In the third, pessimistic scenario, Israel inflicts only minor damage on Iran's nuclear sites. IDF Aircraft are downed, pilots killed or captured. Iran's counterstrike is devastating, with many Israelis killed and critical infrastructure hit. American forces are also severely affected. Disagreements erupt immediately between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, who claims he warned Israel against acting and seeks to broker a reconciliation with Tehran, even accepting uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.
Iran declares a perpetual war against Israel and begins daily missile and drone attacks. International airlines halt flights to Israel, and most shipping companies refuse to dock due to skyrocketing insurance costs. Western criticism of Israel intensifies, merging Gaza war fatigue with anger over economic collapse from oil and commodity price surges. Some countries impose sanctions and distance themselves from Israel.
Shifting sands in the Arab world
Fearing that Iran has gained strength despite Israel's efforts, Arab leaders take steps to align more closely with Tehran, cutting overt and covert ties with Israel. In some countries, this isn't enough: in Lebanon, a Shiite uprising topples the government, and Hezbollah seizes power. Though militarily weakened and under constant Israeli threat, the group redefines Lebanon's political landscape. Similar unrest flares in Iraq, where pro-Iranian mobs cause significant US casualties and the government falls. Pro-Iranian governments soon rise in Kuwait and Bahrain.
Tehran announces its immediate withdrawal from the nuclear treaty and fast-tracks its weapons program. Within weeks, a nuclear test detonates. Iran enters the "immunity zone," akin to North Korea. Despite explicit threats, the US refrains from action, effectively greenlighting Iran's transformation into a nuclear power. Decades of US presidential pledges are rendered meaningless.
Within a few years, Iran builds several nuclear bombs and uses the cover of deterrence to rearm its terrorist proxies across the region. A nuclear arms race ensues as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey all seek their own arsenals "for defensive purposes."
Israel's deterrent power and practical defenses are both eroded. The regional instability forces it to maintain readiness on all fronts, stretching its capabilities. Instead of ending wars, it must expand them. The heavy economic toll threatens national stability, while internal divisions deepen. For the first time, voices emerge questioning Israel's long-term survivability.
These three scenarios aren't exhaustive and could blend in reality. A clear-cut outcome might not emerge immediately; time will be needed to assess the results and for both sides to shape the narrative.
One thing is clear: an Israeli strike on Iran would amount to an open declaration of war. While Israel can argue that Iran struck first, by backing Hamas' October 7 assault and launching direct attacks last April and October, Iran will claim its retaliatory moves were acts of self-defense, triggered by Israeli assassinations in Syria and Lebanon and strikes on its proxies.
This rhetorical battle matters primarily in diplomatic circles, where real-world consequences will depend on economic shockwaves, especially market reactions. If Israel strikes hard but normalcy quickly returns, it may come out ahead. If the reverse occurs, a diplomatic tsunami could follow.
Decision-making under pressure
One hopes these and other scenarios have been clearly presented to decision-makers, with all their strategic implications. Many cabinet members lack deep understanding of such matters and tend to speak in visions rather than realities. Their habit of belittling defense officials may discourage open expression of professional assessments, especially in the wake of leaks revealing who supported or opposed wartime moves. Some may now prefer to speak "for the record" only.
Prime Minister Netanyahu must also have briefed the opposition, as precedent demands. Menachem Begin did so with Shimon Peres before striking Iraq's reactor in 1981; Ehud Olmert did the same with Netanyahu before the 2007 Syria strike. Netanyahu even bragged about his inclusion at the time, compromising Israel's deliberate ambiguity.
Briefing the opposition is not a courtesy, it's a democratic obligation for operations of such magnitude. It helps unify the home front amid anticipated Iranian reprisals and ensures diverse opinions are aired, especially in a cabinet with limited strategic depth. While protocol mandates briefing opposition leader Yair Lapid, Netanyahu would have done well to consult Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both former Israel Defense Forces chiefs with extensive Iran expertise.
If Israel does strike
Israel would do well to avoid chest-thumping, focusing instead on deepening its offensive (if necessary), fortifying defenses, and securing its diplomatic and internal fronts. But given the country's chaotic political culture, a full-blown frenzy is likely. Netanyahu supporters will hail him for delivering on a nuclear red line. Opponents will accuse him of gambling with national security to save his political career.
First, the government must act responsibly and use the Iran operation to unite the country. This was urged after October 7 too, but the opposite happened. Netanyahu is not Olmert, who chose silence over political gain after the Syria strike. He will seek full credit, understandable politically, but potentially harmful nationally.
Second, an international public diplomacy campaign must launch the moment the pilots return. It must explain why the strike was vital and what will follow. This demands tight coordination with Western governments and timely military updates. Israel had such a plan in place before the Syria strike. Its current communication failures during the Gaza war raise doubts about readiness.
Third, the defense establishment will face immense new challenges, chiefly from Tehran. The government should bolster it by closing harmful fronts, starting with Gaza, addressing the manpower crisis, including drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews, and ending public attacks on top defense officials.
