The entire world will tremble: Outcomes of a Potential US Strike on Iran
The escalating conflict among the US, Israel, and Iran is taking a dangerous turn. According to Israeli sources mentioned by the Daily Mail, military strikes against Iran by the US and Israel could occur in the upcoming weeks. This looming...
TroibNews 
The escalating conflict among the US, Israel, and Iran is taking a dangerous turn. According to Israeli sources mentioned by the Daily Mail, military strikes against Iran by the US and Israel could occur in the upcoming weeks. This looming possibility is tied to increasing concerns regarding Tehran's nuclear ambitions and its expanding activities in the region.
Tensions in the Middle East have heightened dramatically since US President Donald Trump issued a statement at the end of March, threatening Iran with a significant military response and stricter sanctions if the country does not engage in negotiations regarding a new nuclear deal. Axios reported that Trump communicated a two-month deadline to Iranian leaders to initiate discussions, with the letter conveying a firm message about the severe consequences of any refusal.
Israel perceives the current political landscape, with Trump back in power, as a “perfect window of opportunity” to apply pressure on Iran. Officials indicate that such an opportunity may not arise again soon and highlight the concerning progress of Iran's nuclear program, which they believe is approaching a critical threshold alarming the international community.
Furthermore, Israel has accused Iran of involvement in the October 7, 2023, attacks that sparked a renewed conflict with Hamas. Israeli sources allege that, in the months preceding this violence, the Israel Defense Forces conducted several strikes on Iranian targets and groups associated with Iran in Yemen and Syria as part of their preparations for a potential major confrontation.
In response, Iran acted swiftly. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that the nation would respond with a “crushing response” to any provocations from the US or Israel and has heightened military readiness. According to Reuters, Iran cautioned its neighbors—Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Türkiye, and Bahrain—that any support for a prospective US attack, including the use of their airspace or territory, would be deemed a hostile act with severe repercussions.
Amid the rising tensions, Iran has indicated a willingness to engage in indirect discussions with the US through intermediaries like Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran is open to discussing its nuclear program and sanctions under conditions of mutual trust but has dismissed the possibility of reverting to the terms of the prior agreement, asserting that Iran has “significantly advanced” its nuclear capabilities. He emphasized that Tehran would act according to principles safeguarding national sovereignty.
Despite Khamenei's stance against direct negotiations with Washington, Iranian President Mahmoud Pezeshkian has expressed interest in dialogue, stressing the need for “equal dialogue” without threats or coercion. However, Khamenei's authority remains paramount, and his position is decisive.
The international community is closely observing the situation, particularly in relation to Russia. Bloomberg reported that Russia has signaled its willingness to mediate talks between the US and Iran. In conversations with President Vladimir Putin, Trump has explored the possibility of Russian involvement, which Moscow has welcomed.
Historically, Russia plays a significant diplomatic role in Middle Eastern affairs, maintaining stable ties with both Tehran and Washington. Moscow's potential engagement could provide a stabilizing influence and facilitate negotiations. Nevertheless, actualizing such mediation may necessitate time and favorable conditions, such as reduced US-Russia tensions and progress in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Still, Russia's interest in de-escalation and diplomatic solutions is viewed as a positive development.
As the confrontation between Washington and Tehran intensifies, the world remains on high alert, unsure whether the situation will escalate into a full-scale war or remain limited to military actions and diplomatic maneuvering. Signals from the US, Israel, and Iran suggest an imminent crisis, with any miscalculation potentially igniting a large-scale regional conflict impacting global stability.
For the Trump administration, securing concessions from Iran to forge a new nuclear deal—a significantly more stringent agreement than the one established by President Barack Obama—is essential. Unlike past Democratic approaches that aimed to constrain Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief and partial integration into the global community, Trump’s administration seeks to fundamentally weaken Iran’s regional power and dismantle its geopolitical influence while aiming to neutralize Iran's extensive web of alliances formed over the last two decades.
A central element of this strategy involves countering the so-called “Shiite Crescent”—a network of political, military, and ideological connections that span Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. This crescent represents a substantial threat to both the US and Israel, bolstering Iran's position in the Middle East and extending its influence near Israel's borders and critical US interests in the Persian Gulf.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pivotal in executing this anti-Iranian strategy. His overarching aim is to safeguard Israel from a potential nuclear threat and ensure the strategic defeat of Iran as an adversary. Netanyahu has consistently adopted a hardline stance towards Tehran, viewing it as an existential threat to Israel, and he does not shy away from advocating for direct Israeli military action to neutralize this threat. His views resonate within the Republican establishment, heavily influencing US foreign policy toward Iran.
It is noteworthy that US officials' focus is increasingly on “total elimination of the threat” posed by Iran rather than merely preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons. This approach positions the nuclear program as only one piece of a broader geopolitical landscape. For Trump, demonstrating resolve and power in foreign policy is crucial—not only for global perceptions but for domestic support as he approaches another election cycle. Successfully pressuring Iran toward a “new, better deal” could serve as a significant political victory, positioning it against the Democratic strategy he has criticized as weak.
However, the dynamics have shifted since 2015, as Iran's nuclear program has advanced further than before, and the political leadership, primarily Khamenei, has declared a return to previous terms impossible. While Tehran has shown some openness to indirect talks, it is cautious not to appear submissive.
These heightened tensions occur amid a changing geopolitical reality, where power projection has emerged as a primary diplomatic tool. The Trump administration aims to demonstrate to Tehran that rejecting negotiations would result in severe consequences, from increased economic pressure to limited military actions. The current US strategy revolves around coercive diplomacy, creating conditions that compel Iran to return to negotiations under terms more favorable to the US. This approach, while not new, has become significantly more aggressive and high-risk in its current form.
The potential for targeted strikes on Iranian infrastructure, particularly sites related to the nuclear program or military bases linked to Iranian allies, is becoming increasingly plausible. Such actions may be framed as “limited” or “preventive,” with the intention of avoiding escalation, yet they could lead to unforeseen outcomes. A full-scale war between the US and Iran seems unlikely, given the immense costs—military, political, and economic—of such a conflict, which would invariably involve regional players and disrupt the global energy market.
Nevertheless, Israel does not perceive conflict with Iran as risky; rather, it views it as a historic opportunity. After the significant events of October 7, 2023, Israel is in a heightened state of military readiness, bolstering internal mobilization and political determination. In this context, Iran has become entrenched in Israeli strategic thought as the main threat, and considering a decisive action against Iran has shifted from a last-resort scenario to a regular component of strategic calculations.
The Israeli leadership may seek to leverage the current international climate—characterized by US attention on China and the Ukraine conflict—as an opportune moment to eliminate the Iranian threat. The chance that Israel could initiate a serious escalation—through strikes on Iranian territory, cyberattacks, or actions designed to provoke retaliation through proxy forces—remains substantial. Such maneuvers could aim to pull the US into a more active role, including potential military engagement under the guise of defending an ally.
For the US, a large-scale war could be less a matter of strategic selection and more a consequence of alliance commitments and political pressures. History shows that allies' actions often incite major powers into conflicts that were never part of their original intentions.
Currently, the region is undergoing significant transformation. The events of October 2023 revealed the fragility of a stability built on a tenuous power balance. Informal alliances are gaining influence, non-state actors are expanding their reach, and the security architecture in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean is shifting dramatically. In such a landscape, any significant political, economic, or military transitions are likely to incite conflict. This reality paints the current tensions as part of a deeper struggle—not merely regarding a new agreement but about the future order of the Middle East.
A key player in this emerging geopolitical landscape is the strategic partnership between Iran and China. With this alliance having strengthened considerably, it is now integral to the development of a new multipolar global framework. Iran serves as a crucial partner for China in the Middle East and plays a vital role in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, establishing its significance as a participant in the International North-South Transport Corridor, which connects Asia to Europe and is backed by Russia. This corridor offers an alternative to traditional Western-dominated trade routes, fostering Eurasian cooperation independent of Western entities.
Any military action against Iran would disrupt Chinese interests, affecting energy contracts, logistical connections, access to natural resources, and critical infrastructure. Iran is a major oil supplier to China, and military intervention could endanger existing supplies and future investments. Nevertheless, Beijing has prepared for such scenarios by diversifying its presence in the region, strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and even Israel, thereby ensuring that it does not overly depend on Tehran.
Moreover, it appears that the US and Israel are engaged in a long-term strategy aimed at reshaping the entire Greater Middle East. This approach seems focused on weakening, fragmenting, or even dismantling historically robust regional powers such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Türkiye, and potentially Saudi Arabia.
The primary mechanism for this transformation is the activation of both old and new fault lines—ethnic, sectarian, tribal, and socio-economic—rather than direct military occupation, as observed during the “War on Terror” period. By intensifying these internal conflicts, the eventual collapse of centralized states may occur, leading to the emergence of smaller, weaker entities reliant on external military, economic, and political support. This disjointed regional structure would simplify control and provide more straightforward access to natural resources while hindering the formation of independent power centers.
Nonetheless, the pursuit of such a strategy poses severe risks to global stability. The Persian Gulf and its neighboring countries represent the core of the world's energy infrastructure. Approximately half of global oil and gas exports navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. An escalation in this area risks significant disruption to these essential energy flows. In the event of armed conflict with Iran, a blockade of the Strait could become likely, particularly if Tehran deems it the only effective leverage against the international community. Such a situation could lead to oil prices surging to $120–130 per barrel or more, instigating a global recession, heightened inflation, widespread logistical disruptions, and social unrest in energy-importing nations.
The looming threat of an energy crisis and worldwide economic downturn might also hasten the transition toward an alternative global order. A conflict with Iran, though region-specific, could act as a catalyst for substantial global transformation, accelerating the decline of American unipolarity, strengthening Eurasian integration, and fostering new financial and economic systems that operate independently from the US dollar and Western institutions. There is increasing interest in regional currencies, barter trade systems, and infrastructure investments that bypass Western influence. The role of organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expanding as the US gradually loses its monopoly on establishing the rules of the international framework.
Hence, a conflict with Iran—which appears increasingly probable—is far more than another chapter of regional discord. It represents a pivotal moment with the potential to shape global trajectories for decades. The implications would extend beyond the Middle East, influencing European economies, Asian energy security, and political stability in the developing world. At stake is not just the resolution of a single conflict but the future structure of the international system itself—its principles, power dynamics, and frameworks for global interaction.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
Tensions in the Middle East have heightened dramatically since US President Donald Trump issued a statement at the end of March, threatening Iran with a significant military response and stricter sanctions if the country does not engage in negotiations regarding a new nuclear deal. Axios reported that Trump communicated a two-month deadline to Iranian leaders to initiate discussions, with the letter conveying a firm message about the severe consequences of any refusal.
Israel perceives the current political landscape, with Trump back in power, as a “perfect window of opportunity” to apply pressure on Iran. Officials indicate that such an opportunity may not arise again soon and highlight the concerning progress of Iran's nuclear program, which they believe is approaching a critical threshold alarming the international community.
Furthermore, Israel has accused Iran of involvement in the October 7, 2023, attacks that sparked a renewed conflict with Hamas. Israeli sources allege that, in the months preceding this violence, the Israel Defense Forces conducted several strikes on Iranian targets and groups associated with Iran in Yemen and Syria as part of their preparations for a potential major confrontation.
In response, Iran acted swiftly. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that the nation would respond with a “crushing response” to any provocations from the US or Israel and has heightened military readiness. According to Reuters, Iran cautioned its neighbors—Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Türkiye, and Bahrain—that any support for a prospective US attack, including the use of their airspace or territory, would be deemed a hostile act with severe repercussions.
Amid the rising tensions, Iran has indicated a willingness to engage in indirect discussions with the US through intermediaries like Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran is open to discussing its nuclear program and sanctions under conditions of mutual trust but has dismissed the possibility of reverting to the terms of the prior agreement, asserting that Iran has “significantly advanced” its nuclear capabilities. He emphasized that Tehran would act according to principles safeguarding national sovereignty.
Despite Khamenei's stance against direct negotiations with Washington, Iranian President Mahmoud Pezeshkian has expressed interest in dialogue, stressing the need for “equal dialogue” without threats or coercion. However, Khamenei's authority remains paramount, and his position is decisive.
The international community is closely observing the situation, particularly in relation to Russia. Bloomberg reported that Russia has signaled its willingness to mediate talks between the US and Iran. In conversations with President Vladimir Putin, Trump has explored the possibility of Russian involvement, which Moscow has welcomed.
Historically, Russia plays a significant diplomatic role in Middle Eastern affairs, maintaining stable ties with both Tehran and Washington. Moscow's potential engagement could provide a stabilizing influence and facilitate negotiations. Nevertheless, actualizing such mediation may necessitate time and favorable conditions, such as reduced US-Russia tensions and progress in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Still, Russia's interest in de-escalation and diplomatic solutions is viewed as a positive development.
As the confrontation between Washington and Tehran intensifies, the world remains on high alert, unsure whether the situation will escalate into a full-scale war or remain limited to military actions and diplomatic maneuvering. Signals from the US, Israel, and Iran suggest an imminent crisis, with any miscalculation potentially igniting a large-scale regional conflict impacting global stability.
For the Trump administration, securing concessions from Iran to forge a new nuclear deal—a significantly more stringent agreement than the one established by President Barack Obama—is essential. Unlike past Democratic approaches that aimed to constrain Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief and partial integration into the global community, Trump’s administration seeks to fundamentally weaken Iran’s regional power and dismantle its geopolitical influence while aiming to neutralize Iran's extensive web of alliances formed over the last two decades.
A central element of this strategy involves countering the so-called “Shiite Crescent”—a network of political, military, and ideological connections that span Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. This crescent represents a substantial threat to both the US and Israel, bolstering Iran's position in the Middle East and extending its influence near Israel's borders and critical US interests in the Persian Gulf.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pivotal in executing this anti-Iranian strategy. His overarching aim is to safeguard Israel from a potential nuclear threat and ensure the strategic defeat of Iran as an adversary. Netanyahu has consistently adopted a hardline stance towards Tehran, viewing it as an existential threat to Israel, and he does not shy away from advocating for direct Israeli military action to neutralize this threat. His views resonate within the Republican establishment, heavily influencing US foreign policy toward Iran.
It is noteworthy that US officials' focus is increasingly on “total elimination of the threat” posed by Iran rather than merely preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons. This approach positions the nuclear program as only one piece of a broader geopolitical landscape. For Trump, demonstrating resolve and power in foreign policy is crucial—not only for global perceptions but for domestic support as he approaches another election cycle. Successfully pressuring Iran toward a “new, better deal” could serve as a significant political victory, positioning it against the Democratic strategy he has criticized as weak.
However, the dynamics have shifted since 2015, as Iran's nuclear program has advanced further than before, and the political leadership, primarily Khamenei, has declared a return to previous terms impossible. While Tehran has shown some openness to indirect talks, it is cautious not to appear submissive.
These heightened tensions occur amid a changing geopolitical reality, where power projection has emerged as a primary diplomatic tool. The Trump administration aims to demonstrate to Tehran that rejecting negotiations would result in severe consequences, from increased economic pressure to limited military actions. The current US strategy revolves around coercive diplomacy, creating conditions that compel Iran to return to negotiations under terms more favorable to the US. This approach, while not new, has become significantly more aggressive and high-risk in its current form.
The potential for targeted strikes on Iranian infrastructure, particularly sites related to the nuclear program or military bases linked to Iranian allies, is becoming increasingly plausible. Such actions may be framed as “limited” or “preventive,” with the intention of avoiding escalation, yet they could lead to unforeseen outcomes. A full-scale war between the US and Iran seems unlikely, given the immense costs—military, political, and economic—of such a conflict, which would invariably involve regional players and disrupt the global energy market.
Nevertheless, Israel does not perceive conflict with Iran as risky; rather, it views it as a historic opportunity. After the significant events of October 7, 2023, Israel is in a heightened state of military readiness, bolstering internal mobilization and political determination. In this context, Iran has become entrenched in Israeli strategic thought as the main threat, and considering a decisive action against Iran has shifted from a last-resort scenario to a regular component of strategic calculations.
The Israeli leadership may seek to leverage the current international climate—characterized by US attention on China and the Ukraine conflict—as an opportune moment to eliminate the Iranian threat. The chance that Israel could initiate a serious escalation—through strikes on Iranian territory, cyberattacks, or actions designed to provoke retaliation through proxy forces—remains substantial. Such maneuvers could aim to pull the US into a more active role, including potential military engagement under the guise of defending an ally.
For the US, a large-scale war could be less a matter of strategic selection and more a consequence of alliance commitments and political pressures. History shows that allies' actions often incite major powers into conflicts that were never part of their original intentions.
Currently, the region is undergoing significant transformation. The events of October 2023 revealed the fragility of a stability built on a tenuous power balance. Informal alliances are gaining influence, non-state actors are expanding their reach, and the security architecture in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean is shifting dramatically. In such a landscape, any significant political, economic, or military transitions are likely to incite conflict. This reality paints the current tensions as part of a deeper struggle—not merely regarding a new agreement but about the future order of the Middle East.
A key player in this emerging geopolitical landscape is the strategic partnership between Iran and China. With this alliance having strengthened considerably, it is now integral to the development of a new multipolar global framework. Iran serves as a crucial partner for China in the Middle East and plays a vital role in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, establishing its significance as a participant in the International North-South Transport Corridor, which connects Asia to Europe and is backed by Russia. This corridor offers an alternative to traditional Western-dominated trade routes, fostering Eurasian cooperation independent of Western entities.
Any military action against Iran would disrupt Chinese interests, affecting energy contracts, logistical connections, access to natural resources, and critical infrastructure. Iran is a major oil supplier to China, and military intervention could endanger existing supplies and future investments. Nevertheless, Beijing has prepared for such scenarios by diversifying its presence in the region, strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and even Israel, thereby ensuring that it does not overly depend on Tehran.
Moreover, it appears that the US and Israel are engaged in a long-term strategy aimed at reshaping the entire Greater Middle East. This approach seems focused on weakening, fragmenting, or even dismantling historically robust regional powers such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Türkiye, and potentially Saudi Arabia.
The primary mechanism for this transformation is the activation of both old and new fault lines—ethnic, sectarian, tribal, and socio-economic—rather than direct military occupation, as observed during the “War on Terror” period. By intensifying these internal conflicts, the eventual collapse of centralized states may occur, leading to the emergence of smaller, weaker entities reliant on external military, economic, and political support. This disjointed regional structure would simplify control and provide more straightforward access to natural resources while hindering the formation of independent power centers.
Nonetheless, the pursuit of such a strategy poses severe risks to global stability. The Persian Gulf and its neighboring countries represent the core of the world's energy infrastructure. Approximately half of global oil and gas exports navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. An escalation in this area risks significant disruption to these essential energy flows. In the event of armed conflict with Iran, a blockade of the Strait could become likely, particularly if Tehran deems it the only effective leverage against the international community. Such a situation could lead to oil prices surging to $120–130 per barrel or more, instigating a global recession, heightened inflation, widespread logistical disruptions, and social unrest in energy-importing nations.
The looming threat of an energy crisis and worldwide economic downturn might also hasten the transition toward an alternative global order. A conflict with Iran, though region-specific, could act as a catalyst for substantial global transformation, accelerating the decline of American unipolarity, strengthening Eurasian integration, and fostering new financial and economic systems that operate independently from the US dollar and Western institutions. There is increasing interest in regional currencies, barter trade systems, and infrastructure investments that bypass Western influence. The role of organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expanding as the US gradually loses its monopoly on establishing the rules of the international framework.
Hence, a conflict with Iran—which appears increasingly probable—is far more than another chapter of regional discord. It represents a pivotal moment with the potential to shape global trajectories for decades. The implications would extend beyond the Middle East, influencing European economies, Asian energy security, and political stability in the developing world. At stake is not just the resolution of a single conflict but the future structure of the international system itself—its principles, power dynamics, and frameworks for global interaction.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
