Analysis Examines Unexpected Outcomes of Hypothetical U.S.-Israel Conflict with Iran

WASHINGTON — In a recent analysis published by Foreign Affairs, Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, examines a hypothetical military conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. The article addresses expectations of a short war leading to rapid regime change in Tehran and contrasts them with potential realities of extended fighting.

Maloney writes that U.S. and Israeli planners have anticipated a brief operation to topple the Iranian government. However, the analysis posits that such an intervention could instead result in a prolonged and resource-intensive conflict. According to the piece, the geography and resilience of Iran's military and political structures would shape the engagement.

The article details how Iran's terrain, including mountainous regions and urban centers, could complicate ground operations and favor defensive strategies. Tehran’s ability to mobilize domestic support and leverage asymmetric warfare tactics, such as missile strikes and proxy forces, would extend the timeline.

Foreign Affairs reported that these factors allow Iranian leadership to determine the conflict's end conditions more than anticipated.

Background on U.S.-Israel planning includes assessments from military think tanks and government reports dating back to the early 2000s. These documents outline scenarios for preemptive strikes to neutralize Iran's nuclear program and weaken its regional influence.

Stakeholders affected include regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, which face heightened security risks from escalation, as well as global energy markets due to Iran's role in oil production.

The analysis underscores the stakes for all parties: for the U.S. and Israel, a drawn-out war could strain military resources and domestic political support; for Iran, survival of the regime would depend on sustaining operations amid sanctions and isolation. Civilians in Iran and neighboring countries would bear the brunt of casualties and displacement.

Looking ahead, Maloney's piece suggests that policymakers should consider diplomatic alternatives, such as renewed nuclear talks under frameworks like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. International bodies, including the United Nations, could play a role in de-escalation efforts.

The article does not predict specific outcomes but emphasizes the need for realistic contingency planning based on historical precedents like the Iraq War.