At midnight (French time), President Trump decided to strike a decisive blow. There is no doubt that this decision will have serious consequences. Even if the Trump administration in Washington denies wanting to bring down the Iranian government, the mullahs’ regime is no longer what it used to be. One can imagine the joy of the anxious Israelis who were waiting for this help that will come from the sky and the sea. Help that was undoubtedly delayed because Netanyahu forced Donald Trump’s hand and, by attacking Iran, stole some of his thunder by denting his rather inflated ego… It took guts. Bibi did it. He took a gamble and he won. American deterrence is therefore back, and in the Middle East, there is total relief. In Russia and China, the message has been received. Iran was a threat to far too many people! Europe tried to make its voice heard: this episode, one of many, will show that it remains unheard. The German chancellor recognized what everyone thinks, that Israel was “doing the dirty work for others.” The British prime minister understood where the storm was brewing, but Emmanuel Macron does not emerge from this ordeal with his reputation enhanced, and France with him. Let’s first look at what happened during the night that will change, if not history, then at least its course… In a second article, Eric H. Biass will describe the military resources and logistics used.[1]
“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” John Donne (No Man Is an Island«
1. Introduction
It will take some time to distinguish the immediate and long-term consequences of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, pending confirmation of their “real success.” These strikes represent a major turning point, eliminating one of the most serious foreign policy threats related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This undeniable military success is already triggering a series of complex repercussions that could fundamentally reshape the Middle East. We will attempt to explore Iran’s internal dynamics, Tehran’s potential retaliatory strategies, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, regional and global geopolitical realignments, the considerable economic fallout, and, finally, the profound implications for the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
This US strike highlights the interdependence of Iranian responses, regional actors’ postures, and global economic vulnerabilities, underscoring that initial tactical success paves the way for an uncertain regional future marked by opportunities for stabilization but also risks of prolonged escalation.
1.1 Background to the US strikes on Iran
On June 21, 2025, the United States carried out air strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. These strikes, carried out in close operational coordination with Israel, are being presented as a “total success” in disabling Iran’s nuclear program.
This action is seen as a watershed moment, ending one of the most serious foreign policy threats and a constant concern for every US president since George W. Bush.
President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was not dictated by desperation or crisis, but rather by strategic calculation. It was made possible by the strength of US leadership, backed by market stability, capable of reshaping the strategic map without triggering global panic. This direct intervention marks the first US military strike on Iranian territory since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
1.2 Multifaceted consequences that will reshape the Middle East
We must first attempt to analyze the multifaceted and long-term consequences of these decisive strikes, focusing on how they could fundamentally reshape the Middle East. This analysis will focus on the geopolitical, economic, security, and diplomatic dimensions, drawing on the analyses of leading experts. Our priority is to explore the immediate consequences, potential Iranian responses, changes in regional and global alliances, economic fallout, implications for nuclear non-proliferation, and the broader strategic reshaping of the Middle East. Quite a program!
2. Immediate consequences and Iran’s response
Let us distinguish between the immediate reactions in Iran and the potential retaliatory strategies that Tehran could employ in response to the US strikes.
2.1 Internal dynamics in Iran: Consolidation or instability of the regime?
Initial observations indicate that, in the short term, the Iranian regime has strengthened its grip and consolidated its power rather than showing signs of instability or immediate cracks. There is a noticeable sense of national solidarity among the Iranian population, with anger directed mainly at Israel, which is perceived as the immediate external threat, rather than at the regime itself. This “rallying around the flag” effect is a common phenomenon in times of external aggression, when attention shifts to national survival.
However, many experts suggest, such as Dr. Raz Zimmt, that this consolidation may only be temporary.
In the medium to long term, once the immediate conflict has subsided, the Iranian population may begin to question how the country got to this point, which could transform their frustration into opposition to the regime and potentially trigger mass protest movements. The strikes, by damaging command and control centers and symbols of power, could paradoxically weaken the regime’s ability to suppress dissent in the future, creating a real opportunity for change. This means that, although the immediate effect would be consolidation, the long-term consequence of the strikes—destruction of infrastructure, potential humiliation, economic strain—could weaken the regime’s ability to maintain control once the crisis has passed. Regime change could then become a strategic outcome, without this having been the direct military objective.
2.2 Potential Iranian retaliation strategies
Despite the “total success” of the strikes on nuclear sites, Iran retains significant retaliatory capabilities, having spent decades developing military and regional response capabilities at multiple levels, aimed in part at deterring the US. As seen in Tel Aviv and Haifa following missile strikes that hit populated areas, both Iran and Russia appear to prefer striking defenseless civilian areas over military targets.
The success of US strikes against Iran’s conventional nuclear program could increase Tehran’s reliance on its asymmetric tools as its primary means of deterrence and power projection. This creates a deterrence dilemma for the US: conventional military superiority, while demonstrated, could inadvertently push Iran toward unconventional, unpredictable, and regionally destabilizing actions that are more difficult to counter with conventional means, potentially leading to a “protracted and disorderly war with no guarantee of political transformation.”
Several retaliation options are being considered:
- Option 1: Target US personnel and assets in the region. Iran could launch a wave of attacks against US forces stationed at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which are much closer than Israel.
- Option 2: Target regional energy infrastructure. Tehran could attack key oil and gas facilities in Gulf countries, with the aim of inflicting a high cost on US involvement and disrupting global energy supplies. A precedent exists with the 2019 drone attack on Saudi oil sites.
- Option 3: Closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s daily oil supply and a significant share of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Iran has fast attack craft and thousands of naval mines that could render the strait impassable, at least temporarily. Such a closure would cause a global oil shock, potentially pushing crude prices above $130 to $150 per barrel and triggering a global recession. The Strait of Hormuz is thus becoming Iran’s most powerful asymmetric global economic lever, enabling it to inflict global economic pain (inflation, risk of recession) far beyond its direct military capacity.
- Option 4: Activation of regional proxies. Although Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” may be weakened, it retains formidable capabilities through groups such as the Houthis in Yemen and allied militias in Iraq. These groups could be reactivated to stretch US capabilities across multiple fronts, turning the conflict into a protracted, multi-domain confrontation. This marks a shift from shadow warfare to a more direct confrontation, where direct strikes against Iran’s state capabilities could force its weakened regional allies to engage more desperately.
- Option 5: Acceleration of remaining nuclear capabilities. Although the main nuclear sites are believed to have been destroyed, experts warn that even successful strikes would only delay, rather than eliminate, Iran’s ability to develop a weapon, as its program is dispersed and includes reinforced underground facilities. Iran would struggle to repair or rebuild its nuclear program under continued pressure from the US and Israel. However, this option would be a risky gamble, likely to trigger a large-scale US military engagement with broad international support.
Table 1: Potential Iranian Retaliation Scenarios and Their Global Impact
Iranian Retaliation – Scenario Method/Specific Targets – Anticipated Impact _ Relevant Snippets
Attacks on US personnel and assets Missiles and drones on US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE. Increased US military involvement; potential casualties.
Targeting regional energy infrastructure Attacks on oil and gas facilities in Gulf countries. Disruption of global energy supplies; increase in oil prices.
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz Naval mines, missiles from the Iranian coast, harassment of ships. Global oil shock (prices > $130-150/barrel); risk of global recession; disruption of LNG.
Activation of regional proxies Actions by Houthis (Yemen), Iraqi militias against US/allied forces. Prolonged, multi-domain conflict; stretching of US capabilities; increased regional destabilization.
Acceleration of the remaining nuclear program Attempt to rebuild or clandestinely develop nuclear weapons. Increased tension on the NPT; risk of nuclear proliferation; strong US/international military response.
3. Geopolitical repercussions and shifting alliances
Let us now turn to the broader international and regional reactions to the US strikes, focusing on the evolving diplomatic landscape and realignment of powers.
3.1 International reactions and diplomatic landscape
The international diplomatic landscape is deeply fragmented. The reactions of key actors illustrate the geopolitical fault lines and rivalries for influence that shape the new regional order in the Middle East.
- Arab countries: Arab countries, particularly those in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, have condemned the Israeli strikes and called for immediate de-escalation. Oman and Qatar are actively attempting to mediate. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have adopted pragmatic and flexible strategies, focusing on regional de-escalation, joining the BRICS and moving closer to China, reflecting a hedging posture in an uncertain environment. Morocco maintains a « skillful and pragmatic hedging posture with multi-alignment and support for the Palestinian cause.
- Turkey: Turkey strongly condemns Israel’s actions, calling them a dangerous escalation under Western complacency. Turkey is taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the fall of the Syrian regime and the partial withdrawal of US forces to expand its influence and counter the Kurdish opposition, aligning itself with Trump’s policies that favor Turkish interests.
- Russia and China: They have publicly expressed concern about the spiral of war, positioning themselves as potential mediators. Although they have condemned the Israeli strikes, neither appears willing, at least for now, to provide any direct military support to Iran or engage in a direct confrontation with the US and Israel. However, they have significant geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability and could provide intelligence, supplies, and weapons if Tehran requested them. Russia has also offered to mediate with Iran, and its relationship with Tehran has deepened since the war in Ukraine. This diplomatic fragmentation highlights a broader trend: the erosion of traditional multilateralism and the rise of hedging strategies by regional powers. States now prioritize their immediate security and economic interests through multiple alignments and flexible diplomacy, rather than rigid alliance structures, making coordinated international responses to future crises more difficult.
- G7: Despite internal tensions, particularly between European members and the Trump administration, the G7 has supported Israel’s right to defend itself while calling for the avoidance of a regional conflagration.
- European Union (EU): The European Union insists on the diplomatic path and the resumption of nuclear dialogue with Tehran. However, European credibility is being tested by their acceptance of Israel’s self-defense argument despite the IAEA’s findings, and their statements on facilitating talks seem “naive at best.”
3.2 Impact on regional alliances and the balance of power
The US strikes mark a “turning point” for the entire Middle East and the international order, fundamentally reshaping the region. They offer a “way out” for Israel and Iran to end their ongoing war, with energetic diplomacy backed by regional partners such as Oman and Qatar being crucial. There is an opportunity to capitalize on this moment, when Iran is “at its weakest,” to secure a ceasefire and agreement on hostages in Gaza, dismantle Hamas, and push for normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This is part of a vision for a more peaceful and integrated region, less threatened by Iran.
However, US involvement could “embolden extremist actors” in the region and “fracture the nascent détente” that Gulf states have been trying to build with Iran, potentially forcing key players such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman to choose sides. It could also derail ongoing diplomatic efforts led by the Gulf, particularly the Qatar-Oman initiative. This paradox of decisive military action means that the “success” of the strikes, while creating opportunities for positive reshaping, also carries substantial risks of deeper fragmentation and unintended consequences if not managed by agile and nuanced diplomacy.
The strikes demonstrated the overwhelming military superiority of the US and Israel and revealed that Iran’s strategic deterrence was “more of a facade than some suspected,” marking a “seismic shift in the region’s balance of power.”
3.3 Evolution of Iran’s “axis of resistance” and proxy conflicts
Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Iraqi paramilitaries, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) as a “forward defense” strategy and an essential element in competing with the US. The war in Gaza has accentuated fault lines in the Middle East, leading to a dangerous cycle of escalation in the region, with Iran and its proxies trading attacks with Israel and US forces.
Although Iran’s “axis of resistance” is described as a “shadow of its former self” since the October 7 war, it still possesses formidable capabilities, particularly through the Houthis and Iraqi militias. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria has largely expelled Iranian-backed militias from this key foothold, weakening Iran’s regional influence. However, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.
If the situation were to degenerate into an “existential threat” to Iran, religious solidarity could push these groups to become actively involved, rapidly spreading the war across the region. This could reactivate Iran’s weakened regional allies in a desperate attempt to stretch US capabilities across multiple fronts, evolving into a prolonged, multi-domain confrontation. This means that the conflict is no longer limited to the issue of containing Iranian proxies, but has reached a point where direct confrontation between states (US-Iran) or the intensification of confrontation between proxies and US/Israeli forces becomes a higher risk, transforming the nature of the regional conflict from indirect battles for influence to more open military engagements.
The conflict undermines the relative stability that Iraq has enjoyed and its emerging role as a regional mediator. Iranian support for rogue Iraqi armed groups undermines Iraq’s foreign policy and invites US retaliation.
Table 2: Reactions and strategic postures of key regional and global actors
Actor Position/Key Reaction Strategic Stance/Change Relevant Snippets
Arab countries (GCC, Oman, Qatar) Condemn Israeli strikes, call for de-escalation; Oman and Qatar attempt to mediate. Hedging, pragmatic de-escalation, multi-alignment (BRICS, China).
Turkey Strongly condemns Israel, calls it a dangerous escalation. Buckpassing and hedging, expansion of influence in Syria, alignment with Trump’s interests.
Russia and China Publicly concerned, positioning themselves as potential mediators. No direct military intervention, but potential support in intelligence/equipment; geopolitical interests in Iranian stability.
G7 Supports Israel’s right to defend itself, calls for avoiding a regional conflagration. Internal tensions (between European members and the Trump administration).
European Union (EU) Insists on the diplomatic path and the resumption of nuclear dialogue. Credibility called into question by acceptance of Israel’s self-defense argument.
Israel Direct military action against nuclear facilities; aims to de-escalate the war with Iran. Demonstration of military superiority; search for a diplomatic “way out.”
4. Economic fallout and global energy markets
The immediate and projected long-term economic consequences of these US strikes will have an impact on global energy markets.
4.1 Immediate market reactions and oil price volatility
The US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities immediately shook the global economy. Stock markets fell and oil prices rose sharply. US benchmark crude (WTI) jumped 4.3% to $74.84, and Brent, the international standard, rose 4.4% to $76.45 per barrel. After the strike, a derivative that allows investors to speculate on fluctuations in crude prices jumped 8.8%, with projections for WTI at around $80 per barrel when markets opened. Brent has already surpassed $90 per barrel, and WTI has surpassed $87.
This volatility marks a return to normal for markets, which had previously calmed down regarding the Israeli-Iranian conflict. The market reaction, beyond the mere threat to supply, reflects increased “geopolitical instability” and a “fragile moment for the global economy.” Even without physical disruption, the mere fear of escalation and the uncertainty of Iran’s response are enough to cause significant market volatility and risk premiums. This indicates that market stability is now intrinsically linked to geopolitical foresight and a posture of control, rather than supply and demand fundamentals alone.
4.2 The critical role and vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical oil corridor, through which approximately one-fifth (20%) of the world’s daily oil supply and 30% of oil transported by sea passes. It is also vital for LNG exports from Qatar (20% of global trade), which has no other outlet. Iran has repeatedly threatened to block the strait in the event of an attack. In an extreme scenario of closure of the strait, crude oil prices could exceed $130 to $150 per barrel.
The Strait of Hormuz is thus transforming from a simple shipping lane into Iran’s most powerful global economic lever. Its vulnerability means that even the threat of closure can create significant economic leverage for Iran, allowing it to inflict global economic pain (inflation, risk of recession) well beyond its direct military capacity, thus acting as a powerful, albeit risky, deterrent against further US or Israeli action. This highlights a critical asymmetric vulnerability for the global economy.
4.3 Broader effects on the global economy and central bank policies
Rising oil prices would act as a “new brake on the global economy.” A prolonged conflict would increase the risk of higher oil prices and an “upward push on inflation.” This could push the US consumer price index (CPI) close to 4% over the summer. Such inflationary pressures would prompt the US Federal Reserve and other central banks to “push back the timing of future rate cuts,” presenting them with a “major headache.”
A prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could reduce global GDP by 1-2%, increasing the risk of a global recession. Supply chains would slow down, and marine insurers are already incorporating new war risk premiums. The geopolitical conflict is thus transforming from a regional security issue into a major driver of global economic instability. It is exacerbating pre-existing economic weaknesses, pushing the world closer to recession and complicating the policy choices of central banks, demonstrating how regional conflicts can have profound and far-reaching economic repercussions.
4.4 Vulnerabilities and responses of major energy importers
- China: As the largest buyer of Iranian oil exports, China would suffer the most obvious consequences of any disruption, although its current stocks may offer some respite. The escalation between Israel and Iran also jeopardizes Beijing’s energy supplies.
- India: Highly vulnerable, importing 90% of its crude oil, of which more than 40% transits through Ormuz. A disruption would severely affect refining operations and trade balances and lead to inflation due to soaring fuel prices.
- Europe: Disruptions to LNG shipments via the Strait of Hormuz would make the global LNG market “extremely tight,” pushing European gas prices significantly higher, especially since Qatar uses this route for 20% of global LNG trade.
- OPEC+: Members, including Saudi Arabia, still have abundant spare production capacity that could be activated to offset shortages, potentially mitigating some of the supply shocks. Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have signaled their willingness to increase production.
Table 3: Impact on Global Energy Markets (Pre- vs. Post-Strike and Scenarios)
Economic Indicator Pre-Strike Value Post-Strike Value / Scenario Relevant Snippets
S&P 500 Stable (before tensions resume) 0.8% decline
Dow Jones Industrial Average Stable (before tensions resume) 0.7% decline (299 points)
Nasdaq Composite Stable (before tensions resume) Fall of 0.9%
WTI price (US crude) ~$72.00-$73.00/barrel $74.84/barrel (4.3% jump); Proj. ~$80/barrel; Current > $87/barrel
Brent price (international standard) ~$73.00-$74.00/barrel $76.45/barrel (4.4% jump); Current > $90/barrel
Projected crude price (Strait of Hormuz closure) N/A > $130-$150/barrel
Impact on global GDP (Strait of Hormuz closure) N/A 1% to 2% reduction
5. The future of nuclear non-proliferation
Let us now examine the profound implications of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities for the international non-proliferation regime.
5.1 Tension on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The ongoing conflict and Iran’s threats to develop a nuclear weapon clearly indicate that the non-proliferation regime is entering a « more volatile phase .“ Iran’s threats to withdraw from the NPT will place ”enormous strain“ on future diplomatic efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The NPT, a ”pillar of the nuclear order“ since 1970, is already considered to be in decline, and this conflict will only ”accelerate this erosion. »
The US strikes, while presented as a counter-proliferation measure, paradoxically increase the likelihood that Iran will leave the NPT and become the 10th state with nuclear weapons. This is because the strikes demonstrate that « prolonged periods of nuclear concealment… create significant international pressure to prevent proliferation, » thereby incentivizing future proliferators to develop a bomb more quickly or keep their intentions more opaque. Military action, while achieving its immediate tactical objective, risks undermining the very international legal framework it seeks to defend, potentially accelerating the long-term erosion of the non-proliferation regime.
5.2 Increased risks of proliferation and nuclear concealment strategies
The risks of proliferation are increasing globally, as nuclear deterrence becomes increasingly attractive in a world characterized by great power competition and geopolitical instability. Examples include discussions in Japan about an “Asian version of NATO” with the potential introduction of nuclear weapons, and debate in South Korea about the introduction or construction of tactical nuclear weapons.
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is pursuing a nuclear energy agreement with the United States, with capabilities such as uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing raising concerns about a “nuclear latency strategy.” If Saudi Arabia develops these technologies, it would have the key components necessary to develop nuclear weapons if regional security dynamics required it.
Iran’s past “open nuclear concealment strategy” (developing latent capabilities while playing brinkmanship) has proven to result in significant international pressure and military intervention. This suggests that future proliferators may attempt to develop a bomb more quickly or keep their political intentions more opaque. The US strikes, while successful against Iran’s program, inadvertently create a “demonstration effect” that could accelerate global proliferation by encouraging other states to pursue nuclear capabilities more aggressively or clandestinely. This would make the world
less secure in the face of nuclear proliferation in the long term, despite the immediate success against Iran.
6. Long-term reshaping of the Middle East
These strikes could also result in a fundamental reshaping of the regional security architecture and power dynamics.
6.1 Potential new regional security architectures
The strikes could lead to a more peaceful and integrated region, “much less threatened by Iran and its terrorist proxies,” if opportunities for diplomacy and normalization (e.g., Saudi Arabia-Israel) are seized. However, a possible US entry into the Israel-Iran war could mark a “turning point,” fundamentally reshaping the Muslim-Arab-majority region. This could force key actors to choose sides, fracturing nascent détentes.
The reshaping of the region presents two radically divergent paths. If diplomacy is agile and opportunities are seized, Iran’s weakening could lead to a more integrated and peaceful region with new alliances. However, if the situation is not managed carefully, this same weakening could embolden extremists, fracture existing détentes, and force polarization, leading to a “protracted and multi-domain confrontation.” The “success” of the strike therefore does not guarantee a positive outcome for regional stability, but creates a highly unstable equilibrium in which the future of the Middle East will depend on the diplomatic and strategic choices made by regional and global actors in the immediate aftermath.
The weakening of Iran’s regional influence, particularly with the fall of the Assad regime, could create momentum for peace.
6.2 Fundamental changes in the dynamics of power and influence
The “seismic shift in the region’s balance of power” due to the demonstrated military superiority of the US and Israel could fundamentally alter regional actors’ perceptions of and interactions with Iran. The fall of the Syrian regime and the partial withdrawal of the US from Syria have created a power vacuum that Turkey is skillfully exploiting to expand its influence. This means a shift in regional power away from the traditional dynamics of the Arab states toward a more assertive Turkey.
The US strikes underscore that US leadership “still carries weight” in reshaping the strategic map. However, a prolonged conflict could undermine Trump’s “America First” vision, dragging the US into another “Middle East quagmire” and weakening its position in the Indo-Pacific.
The conflict could also strengthen “revisionist actors” such as Russia and China in their respective spheres of influence, even if they do not intervene directly militarily. The reassertion of hard military power, while enabling tactical victory, comes with significant strategic costs for the US, risking entrapment in a region from which it has sought to disengage and creating opportunities for its global rivals to expand their influence. The region becomes a laboratory for testing the effectiveness and limits of hard power in achieving long-term strategic objectives.
6.3 Scenarios of prolonged conflict, fragile stability, or new diplomatic paths
- Prolonged Conflict: If Iran retaliates, a US-Israeli war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian regime becomes more likely. This could lead to a “protracted and messy war with no guarantee of political transformation.” The reactivation of Iranian proxies could lead to a “protracted, multi-domain confrontation with no clear outcome.”
- Fragile Stability: A scenario in which the current clerical regime remains in Tehran but is weakened could lead to “enormous tension” and continued hybrid attacks. The region could experience periods of de-escalation interspersed with new cycles of retaliatory attacks.
- New Diplomatic Paths: The strikes could create leverage for “smart diplomacy with iron conditions.” This would involve demanding not only the repeal of all nuclear ambitions, but also an end to support for proxies, which could potentially lead to a “palace coup” or internal change in Iran without a large-scale war. However, the diplomatic window appears “almost closed” in the short term, as Tehran may view Trump’s rhetoric as a threat rather than an opening.
7. Strategic implications and recommendations
7.1 Key lessons for policymakers
The US strikes, while successful in their immediate objective, have triggered a complex set of second- and third-order consequences that will fundamentally reshape the Middle East. The region stands at a critical crossroads, with the potential for both unprecedented integration and deeper fragmentation. Economic stability is now highly vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, particularly with regard to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The non-proliferation regime is under severe strain, with an increased risk of nuclear proliferation fueled by a “demonstration effect.” Iran’s internal dynamics present a long-term variable; immediate consolidation could mask future instability. Finally, the nature of the regional conflict is evolving, with a higher risk of direct confrontation and intensification of asymmetric warfare.
7.2 Recommendations for managing future risks and promoting stability
To navigate this complex and uncertain post-strike environment, policymakers would be well advised to consider the following strategic recommendations:
- Sustained diplomacy with a clear message: Despite the narrowing diplomatic window, Washington must continue to work through back channels to offer Iran a “diplomatic exit that allows it to save face.” Clear communication is needed to deter retaliation while leaving room for future engagement. The EU and other mediators should intensify their efforts.
- Proactive regional engagement: It is imperative to take advantage of the current moment to advance normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel and a comprehensive resolution of the conflict in Gaza. Moderate factions in countries such as Iraq should also be supported to mitigate the influence of Iranian-backed groups and prevent the country from sliding into further conflict.
- Energy market resilience: Strategies should be developed to mitigate the impact of potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, including coordination with OPEC+ to activate excess capacity and explore alternative energy solutions.
- Strengthening non-proliferation: It is crucial to reinvigorate international efforts to strengthen the NPT, potentially through new incentives or enforcement mechanisms, to counter the growing risks of proliferation and the “demonstration effect” of military counter-proliferation.
- Strategic patience and long-term vision: It is essential to avoid being drawn into a “large-scale war in the Middle East” or pursuing regime change as a direct military objective without a clear post-conflict strategy. The focus should be on the long-term goals of a stable and less expansionist Iran, potentially through internal change.
- Managing Great Power Competition: It is important to recognize that prolonged US involvement in the Middle East could undermine its strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific and strengthen rivals such as Russia and China. Efforts should be made to de-escalate the situation where possible to avoid creating new opportunities for revisionist actors.
To conduct this analysis, the editorial team drew on both open sources and analyses by our experts.
European-Security
[1]
See Also:
- „Der Mitternachtshammer“: Für wen läutet die Glocke? — (2025-0621) —
- « Le marteau de minuit ». Pour qui sonne le glas ? » — (2025-0621) —
- « A Nail in Iran’s Nuke Coffin » — (2025-0621) —
- « Midnight Hammer »: For Whom the Bell Tolls ? — (2025-0621) —
