Scenarios Regarding the Future of the Iran-Israel Confrontation
WANA (Aug 07) – With the end of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel and the beginning of a fragile ceasefire, an important question now faces policymakers and analysts: Will the region move toward another direct confrontation, or will the pattern of psychological warfare, economic pressure, and limited military actions continue? Examining recent developments and the goals of the main actors offers a clearer picture of the likely future.
Iran’s Response: From Active Deterrence to Reliance on Asymmetric Warfare
In response to these attacks, Iran suspended negotiations with the United States and resumed its nuclear activities with greater intensity. Tehran’s policy at this stage moved toward active deterrence, particularly through strengthening its defensive, cyber, and strategic capabilities.
At the same time as it intensified diplomatic activity at the United Nations, Iran focused on rebuilding and enhancing the regional resistance axes (Hezbollah, al-Hashd al-Shaabi, and Ansarullah). This strategy not only has a military aspect but also conveys a clear political message to Washington and Tel Aviv: that the cost of military action against Iran will extend beyond Iran’s geography.
“War Room” in Tehran: Why Has the Defense Council Been Revived?
WANA (Aug 05) – Tehran has once again turned to one of its oldest security mechanisms: the National Defense Council. A body that had long remained silent is now reactivated at one of the region’s most volatile moments. Reviving this council is more than an organizational adjustment; it sends a clear message: Iran is preparing […]
U.S. and Israeli Strategic Calculations: Stated and Hidden Goals
The timing of the attacks, on the eve of negotiations, indicates a deliberate effort to sabotage any potential agreement.
The primary objective is to create a crisis of trust between Iran and the U.S. and to push Washington toward more hardline positions.
After the recent imposed war, Israel has faced a dilemma in its security policy: on the one hand, threatening to resume war, and on the other, concern over its human and military costs. The current alternative strategy is to focus on cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, and limited operations, while avoiding full-scale war.
The attack on internationally monitored facilities has cast doubt on the U.S.’s commitment to the non-proliferation regime.
It appears that the U.S.’s strategic goal is less about nuclear containment and more about intervention aimed at changing behavior or weakening Iran’s power structure. These attacks have led Iran to more seriously consider withdrawing from international treaties and adopting more robust deterrent strategies.
Iran May Quit NPT as ‘First Option’ if Snapback Mechanism is Triggered
WANA (Jul 19) – A senior Iranian lawmaker has warned that Tehran may withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as its “minimum and first option” in response to any activation of the UN snapback sanctions mechanism. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that the UN snapback […]
Absence of Mediation and the Decline of International Institutions’ Roles
Meanwhile, institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency—which previously played roles in arbitration and oversight—have become effectively sidelined following the recent attacks.
The roles of key actors such as Russia, China, and even the European Union have so far been largely limited to issuing warning statements. This situation has opened the space for greater security competition and unilateral actions.
Probable Short- and Medium-Term Scenarios
In the next 6 months, the following three scenarios can be considered:
Scenario One: Unstable “No War–No Peace” Situation (Probability: Over 50%)
Continued maximum economic pressure by the United States and its allies; strengthening of the Resistance Front by Iran as a deterrence tool; reduction in Iran’s level of cooperation with the IAEA; potential formal withdrawal from the NPT if the snapback mechanism is activated; Iran’s efforts to rebuild its nuclear posture without entering a direct war; and both sides avoiding large-scale military confrontation but remaining prepared for limited clashes.
Ulyanov: Iran Has the Right to Enrich Uranium
WANA (Jul 29) – Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, stressed in a recent interview that Iran, despite mounting pressure, has adopted a balanced approach toward the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and retains the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment. Speaking to the press […]
Scenario Two: Expansion of Proxy War and Limited Military Confrontations (Probability: Around 25%)
Limited U.S. or Israeli attacks on Iran’s economic infrastructure; Iran’s response through targeting U.S. bases in the region as well as proxy attacks by allied forces; continuation of Iran’s nuclear activities alongside reciprocal security threats.
In this scenario, regional players such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Turkey will play significant roles in either managing or escalating the crisis.
Scenario Three: Return to the Negotiating Table (Probability: Less than 15%)
If all sides feel they have reached an impasse, a gradual return to negotiations is possible.
There is a chance of a temporary agreement involving a two-year suspension of uranium enrichment in exchange for the suspension of oil and banking sanctions. The prerequisites for such an agreement would be active mediation by global powers and renewed trust-building between Iran and the U.S. However, in the current climate, mutual distrust and inflamed public opinion on both sides present serious obstacles.
Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Steve Witkoff, the head of the U.S. negotiation team. Social media/ WANA News Agency
Conclusion: Why Is the Region Moving Toward a Dangerous Deadlock?
Military attacks have effectively eliminated the space for dialogue and widened the diplomatic rift between Iran and the West. Oversight by the IAEA has been weakened, and trust in international legal mechanisms has declined.
The behavior of both sides is now based on a logic of deterrence and mutual threats, rather than political resolution and trust-building. In the absence of effective diplomatic initiatives, there is a growing likelihood of entering a cycle of limited but high-risk confrontations, which could unintentionally lead to a broader war.
In the short term, the likelihood of intensified sanctions, continued Iranian nuclear activities, and proxy confrontations is high.
In the long term, if a path toward de-escalation through negotiations and third-party mediation does not take shape, the risk of direct conflict will increase. Regional and international actors are now more than ever faced with a decisive choice: move toward a political solution, or enter a phase of widespread instability.
