Think Tanks Assess Possible Paths of the US–Israel–Iran War

Amid the second phase of the war and mounting geopolitical challenges, as well as the selection by Iran’s Assembly of Experts of Mojtaba Khamenei as the third Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and with signs emerging of fragility in US operational sustainability, the European Council on Foreign Relations ECFR published an assessment indicating that Washington’s objectives in the war against Iran do not appear entirely clear.

These objectives range from preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to supporting regime change. However, the continuation of Iran’s response, or pressure from Israel to maintain escalation, could push the United States into a longer and more costly military engagement.

Attention among several think tanks then shifted to a broader evaluation of the role of international actors, with particular focus on major powers maintaining strategic partnerships and coordination with Iran, as well as the war’s impact on energy supply security.

The Middle East Institute MEI indicated that China is managing the US–Iran conflict through a policy of limited support without direct involvement. Beijing criticises US operations at the diplomatic level and maintains its relations with Iran, yet avoids any military commitment, placing its broader economic and strategic interests in the region first.

On the other hand, the Atlantic Council expressed the view that conflict in the Middle East could provide Russia with an opportunity to increase revenues from energy exports and strengthen its position in global energy markets, particularly if the conflict leads to higher prices or weakens European unity in reducing dependence on Russian energy.

It is also noted that Russia is preparing a draft resolution for the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire and de-escalation in the region.

Given that the state of anticipation preceding the outbreak of war with Iran has shifted into confusion within international economic circles, and with financial markets experiencing some volatility alongside successive increases in crude oil prices expected to reach 200 dollars per barrel, a report issued by Chatham House indicated that war with Iran could cause economic disruption in the Middle East and energy markets.

However, its direct global impact may remain relatively limited. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund stated that a prolonged crisis in the Middle East could affect market confidence, economic growth and inflation.

The report added that the greatest risk lies in rising energy prices and disruptions to supply chains and vital maritime routes. In this context, Trump commented on the dramatic rise in oil prices, stating that they would fall rapidly once the Iranian nuclear threat is eliminated, describing the surge as a very small price to pay for the United States, the world, and for security and peace.

Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations CFR confirmed in its latest assessment that the Kurds in Iran could become a source of pressure on the Iranian regime if the conflict escalates or the state weakens.

However, their ability to overthrow the regime or challenge it decisively remains limited due to military, political and regional factors. It appears that Washington’s reliance on minority groups as a tool to produce radical change within the regime does not fully reflect an understanding of the region’s geography. Activating such a strategy could harm the reality and future of the region for generations.

Washington’s belief that its experience in managing crises such as Venezuela grants it the ability to control developments in the Iranian case overlooks the fact that the Iranian situation differs fundamentally from the Iraq war. Moreover, Trump’s alignment with the expansionist objectives of Tel Aviv could inevitably damage his political future.

At the same time, The Times of Israel published remarks by President Trump stating that the decision to end the war with Iran would be a joint decision with Netanyahu.

Some reports have also pointed to emerging disagreements between the United States and Israel over Israel’s targeting of Iranian oil facilities, including 30 fuel storage depots, suggesting that the scale of the attack exceeded Washington’s expectations despite prior notification. These disagreements reportedly surfaced alongside the cancellation of planned visits to Israel by Witkoff and Kushner on the tenth of the current month.