Iran
The potential collapse of Iran’s Shia regime, established in 1979, would likely usher in a prolonged period of instability and uncertainty, according to analysts. Experts warn of a potential scenario similar to Syria – a years-long, bloody civil war in the ethnically and religiously diverse nation of 90 million people.
Should the current regime maintain control, a particularly brutal wave of repression is expected. The suppression of protests in January was already among the most violent in the regime’s history, with thousands reportedly killed. Estimates, such as those reported by Time magazine, suggest the death toll could be as high as 30,000.
Alternatively, a newly restructured, radical Islamic regime might adopt a more moderate foreign policy, at least temporarily, and offer greater concessions to U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the nuclear program. Prioritizing internal stabilization and military rearmament would likely precede any such shift. Strong military deterrence would almost certainly be a higher priority for the regime following the U.S.-Israeli attack, making a complete abandonment of the nuclear program highly unlikely.
Israel
In the short term, and for several years to come, the war waged in conjunction with the United States represents a significant success for Israel, regardless of how the situation unfolds in Iran. The threat of a dangerous Iranian attack is likely neutralized for years, and Iranian allies bordering Israel – Hezbollah and Hamas – are weakened and will continue to be.
The conflict is also expected to benefit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in upcoming elections, likely held this fall. Netanyahu will likely seek to leverage the war to deflect attention from the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack – the largest tragedy in Israel’s history – which occurred under his government.
The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will likely pose an additional security risk to Israeli representatives abroad for years to come. Israel’s military actions since the Hamas attack, including actions perceived as reckless by Arab states, have drawn sharp criticism. The war’s strategic impact remains uncertain.
Gulf States
The Gulf States are keen to protect their reputation as attractive destinations for tourists, influencers, and the financial world, and do not want to see that jeopardized by Iranian rockets. Tehran’s attacks on Gulf States are not achieving their intended effect; instead, these nations are threatening military retaliation.
The Gulf States would likely welcome a regime change, viewing the radical Shia leadership and its hegemonic ambitions as an acute threat. But, a Syria-like situation would be an even worse outcome.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia, and particularly Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has an opportunity to ascend as the undisputed regional hegemon and significantly weaken the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are supported by Iran. A power vacuum in Iran, however, would also be a concern for Riyadh, especially if the security of oil exports – whether in the Strait of Hormuz or the Red Sea – were compromised.
Europe
As with Turkey, Iraq, and the Gulf States, a collapse of central authority and civil war in Iran would be a worst-case scenario for Europe, particularly if it led to another large wave of refugees. An immediate increase in Iranian terrorist attacks on European soil is also a concern. The conflict also poses a threat to Europe’s recovering economy, with potentially sustained higher energy prices and the potential for political repercussions in national elections. Europe’s currently cautious stance reflects these concerns.
USA
With midterm elections approaching in the U.S. This fall, President Trump faces significant political risk with the attack, which breaks his campaign promises (no fresh wars) and goes against the majority of U.S. Public opinion, especially if gasoline prices rise substantially.
Trump bypassed Congress in the lead-up to the attack, making it solely “his” war. How he will successfully “sell” this, even without fundamental change or a power vacuum in Iran, remains unclear.
China
According to the British publication The Economist, Trump also aims to send a signal of strength and military power globally, particularly regarding potential plans by Beijing to attack Taiwan militarily. The U.S. Attack on its ally, Tehran, is also a setback for China’s geopolitical ambitions. Active intervention is not an option for Beijing, diminishing its appeal as an ally, particularly in Africa, and its ability to offer an alternative to the U.S.
Economically, China would also suffer if oil supplies from Iran were disrupted.
International Law
One loser is already apparent: international law, which has been openly violated on multiple occasions in recent years. According to international law expert Manfred Nowak, the attacks by the U.S. And Israel over the weekend clearly violated the UN Charter, specifically the prohibition of the utilize of force. A preemptive strike is only justified if enemy troops have already been massed on the border, Nowak stated.
