Even if Iran chooses not to escalate further, turmoil is almost guaranteed—not just within Iran, but across the region and globally. The U.S. strike risks triggering broader consequences. Russia and China may now feel emboldened to justify future aggression by pointing to this as yet another example of unchecked great power behaviour.
This week’s NATO summit will be revealing. While U.S. allies may express support in public, behind closed doors there will likely be renewed concerns about America’s reliability and Trump’s judgment—especially regarding Article 5. Meanwhile, the U.S. is now more deeply entangled in the Middle East, reducing its capacity to focus strategically elsewhere, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
If strategists in Washington and Tel Aviv had calculated that airstrikes would exert irresistible pressure on the Iranian leadership, many Iranian analysts suggest the opposite. Nationalist sentiment has risen sharply. Even among those who oppose the Islamic Republic, there's a growing sense that the attack was unjust—and that it aims to diminish Iran as a nation. External threats often unify even the most divided societies. The strikes may have weakened the regime militarily, but politically, they could be exactly what helps consolidate its grip.
Airstrikes may offer a temporary show of strength, but history—from WWII to Kosovo—shows their limited value in achieving lasting political outcomes. Meanwhile, unresolved crises like Gaza resurface, and Washington becomes even more closely bound to Israeli policy decisions—despite increasing uncertainty about whether Israel’s trajectory is driven by a desire for security or regional dominance.
The deeper concern is that the Trump administration appears fundamentally unprepared for the level of strategic thinking this moment demands. There is no clear consensus, no continuity in expertise, and—most crucially—no defined political objective guiding U.S. military actions.