Tehran – West Asia has witnessed a long-standing scenario unfolding. For years, analysts, officials and politicians warned Israel and the United States that attacks on Iran would unleash catastrophic waves of retaliation from Iranian forces and open floodgates to regional fires with international reactions.
However, on June 13, Israelis and Americans decided they were willing to take the brunt of retaliation if it meant eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and destabilizing the Iranian government.
Analysts speculate that the plan is for Israel to attack Iran with US support, thereby protecting the US from direct consequences. Netanyahu and Trump believed that after assassinating Iran’s commander-in-chief and attacking the country’s nuclear and military territory, Iran lacked leadership and resources to equip an effective counter strike. They also helped the Iranians to dismantle what remained with the Iranian government, assuming that Iranians would gather behind foreign invaders.
In the eight days since the war, none of these objectives were achieved. Iran’s nuclear sites and military capabilities remain largely intact. Israel can no longer maintain the intensive air campaign that it launched on the first day. The Iranians are more united than ever, and in addition, a new generation of Iranian military leaders who took orders within hours of the assassination of their predecessors unleashed a barrage of merciless missiles on occupied territory. The national confidence is plummeting as Israel’s major cities, including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Biasheba, find themselves in serious damage and finding that Israel has launched a war that authorities cannot win, putting people at risk who have promised to enter the “safeest” space for Jews.
The US call for intervention is growing within Israel. The Hebrew media is increasingly reporting on the lack of sufficient military and economic resources to sustain a long and unexpected war with Iran, especially given the substantial remaining missile weapons of Iran. Administration officials have been allowing Israel to declare victory as they reportedly urge the US to intervene directly and to eliminate Iran’s nuclear sites with the ammunition that Israel lacks.
Meanwhile, Iran has granted US aid to Israel, leading to the deaths of more than 400 Iranians and more than 2,000 injuries, many of which were women and children. But for now, at least for now, Iran has chosen to exclude the US from direct retaliation. Tehran continues to target important military, political and strategic locations within Israel, but it warns it will consider raising a response to American interests and guiling its involvement in the war to the red line.
Below we look at a list of potential consequences that the US and the rest of the world face if the US attacks Iran directly.
40,000 Americans in Iran’s direct fire
First and foremost, the positioning of US personnel and assets in West Asia is easily within the scope of Iranian missiles and drones, making it sharply vulnerable to potential Iranian retaliation.
Around 50,000 Americans are deployed in the region under the command of the Pentagon, with the US investing billions of dollars in 19 locations in West Asia, including Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The successful strikes of Iraq and Syrian resistance to American bases in 2023 and 2024 were carried out in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza, showing that despite a large economic investment in security, these bases are susceptible to damage and destruction. Given the proven ability of resistance to effectively target American assets with relatively less refined drones, it is almost certain that Iran can destroy these locations with cutting-edge weapons that violate multiple layers of Israeli, Western and Arab defence in and around the occupying regions.
“The United States cannot simply launch military operations in Iran and withdraw from it. We will be drawn into conflicts that go far beyond the scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said West Asian scholar and expert Mahdi Kanalizadeh. “It would end President Trump’s presidency much sooner than he left three years.”
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz
About half of the world’s oil and gas reserves are located in or near the Persian Gulf, and the majority of this resource for the global market must pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime chokepoint under Iran’s control.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calls the Strait “the world’s most important oil transport chokepoint,” passing around a quarter of the world’s total oil liquid consumption.
Esmeil Kouzli, a member of Iran’s parliament and former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), recently said that closing the waterway was “under consideration” and that Iran “will make the best decision with determination.”
Washington’s direct involvement in the war will most certainly push Iran to take this step and close the Strait of Hormuz. Western media reports suggest that Iran has a “robust” navy and that it already positions its forces to take action if the US launches an attack on Iran.
Analysts warn that closing the Strait of Hormuz would unleash economic turmoil around the world. An immediate halt of massive global oil supplies will lead to massive price surges, crippling industries, and inflation will be driven by. A global recession could continue as businesses fight increased costs and consumers cut their spending. Trade will be severely interrupted, supply chains will collapse, and geopolitical tensions will escalate. East Asia and Europe, which rely heavily on Persian Gulf oil, are particularly vulnerable, despite their reserves, as are the states of the Persian Gulf.
The US may be able to ease itself against chaos more than other countries due to its own oil production. But its economy and consumers will face catastrophic financial consequences from such closures.
Trump’s own base is also on the line.
The United States is currently facing the reality that Iran remains undefeated, and Israel’s defeat is inevitable, according to former US Marines and UN Weapon Inspector, according to Scott Ritter. “The critical question now is whether the US refrains from direct intervention, whether it pursues diplomacy to avoid a rapid escalation of this conflict, or whether it will enter into a direct war to save Israel from defeat.”
Ritter argues that choosing the latter course would cost Trump a significant portion of his domestic base. These voters supported him based on his promise to end both the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza. Trump promises to put America first, put the lives of 40,000 Americans at risk, raise oil prices to $500 a gallon, and cause environmental catastrophes in West Asia, would be a harsh betrayal of that vow.
“The war between Iran and Israel does not constitute a national security order for the United States. Turning it into one would alienate the millions who voted for Trump who believes in his promise to be the president of peace.”
US strikes are not even guaranteed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities
Lastly, the list of reasons why it’s not wise for the US to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities is not even certain whether American bunkerbusters can even extract Iran’s nuclear sites.
The facility buried beneath the mountain is protected by almost 100 metres of bedrock, creating great difficulty even the most powerful bunkerbuster bombs. The US owns a massive weapon specifically designed for such targets, but experts have questioned whether even multiple direct hits can guarantee the destruction of the facility. The accuracy and number of bombs required contributes to uncertainty, along with the inherent risks of such complex operations.