Hasan Dajah

The events of the first day of the US-Israeli confrontation with Iran demonstrate that the conflict has entered an unprecedented phase in terms of the scale of the strikes and the speed of political and military developments. This makes an analysis of future scenarios essential for understanding the direction of the crisis. The extensive military operations, the targeting of command and military sites, and the Iranian responses on multiple fronts all indicate that the course of the war is not yet decided and depends on a set of conditions that will determine whether the escalation remains limited or transforms into a wider regional conflict. Based on the available data, three main scenarios can be formulated, each with its own objective conditions and varying chances of realization.

The first scenario involves a limited and calculated escalation, with continued US and Israeli airstrikes against military and strategic targets inside Iran, met with measured Iranian responses that do not exceed certain limits. This scenario is based on the premise that all parties are aware of the cost of a full-scale war and are therefore attempting to achieve political and military gains without sliding into open confrontation. One of the conditions for this scenario to materialize is that the strikes remain focused on military targets and that the parties avoid targeting areas that would result in massive civilian casualties or direct attacks on US forces, as such casualties could trigger a political escalation that would be difficult to contain.

It also requires the continuation of indirect communication channels between the major powers, allowing for tacit understandings that prevent the crossing of red lines. The chances of this scenario materializing are relatively high in the short term, because the first day showed that, despite the intensity of the strikes, the Iranian responses, although extensive, remained within the framework of mutual deterrence and did not escalate into a full-blown confrontation. Furthermore, there are indications that some parties are willing to keep the door open for political solutions later.

The second scenario is the outbreak of a wider regional war, a scenario based on a gradual loss of control over the escalation. As Iranian attacks expand to include US bases and interests in the Gulf, and as missiles and drones are launched at several countries, the risk of new parties becoming involved increases. The conditions for this scenario are primarily linked to a major strike resulting in a large number of casualties among US forces or civilians in the Gulf States or Israel, which would prompt Washington to significantly expand its military operations. This is also linked to Iran taking strategic steps such as disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or targeting energy infrastructure, which could prompt a broader coalition to intervene. Furthermore, a prolonged escalation of strikes without decisive results could push the parties to further escalate in search of a political or military gain. The chances of this scenario are moderate, as its elements are already present, especially given the conflict's expansion to multiple countries. However, there are still clear international efforts to prevent a full-blown conflagration due to its serious economic and humanitarian repercussions for the region and the world.

The third scenario involves a return to negotiations after a period of escalation. This scenario may seem contradictory to the reality of war, but historically, it often occurs after intense rounds of violence. This scenario assumes that the parties reach the conclusion that the military and political costs are too high and that achieving their objectives by force alone is impossible. The conditions for this path to materialize include, firstly, the preservation of Iran's core military capabilities despite the strikes, rendering the idea of ​​a swift victory unrealistic. It also requires international pressure from major powers to reopen channels of negotiation, in addition to an internal desire among the warring parties to avoid a protracted war of attrition.

One indicator that might support this scenario is that some political statements hint at a new leadership or a desire for dialogue, meaning that the diplomatic door is not completely closed. The chances of this scenario materializing are moderate to high in the medium term, especially if military operations fail to achieve clear strategic objectives or if global economic costs rise due to disruptions in energy and trade markets.

When comparing the three scenarios, it becomes clear that the decisive factor is not only military strength, but also the parties' ability to manage risks and assess consequences. Modern wars often begin with limited plans and then expand due to hasty decisions or miscalculations. Furthermore, the complex regional environment and the multiplicity of actors increase the likelihood of misunderstandings or unintended escalation. Therefore, the conditions for realization are not fixed, but rather change daily depending on developments on the ground and political reactions.

In conclusion, the most likely scenario in the near term appears to be a continuation of the pattern of limited escalation, with the parties attempting to achieve military and political gains without reaching the point of no return that would trigger a full-scale war. However, this path remains fragile, as any miscalculation or a strike causing significant casualties could quickly lead to a wider escalation, opening the door to a regional war that would be difficult to contain.

Conversely, a return to negotiations remains a realistic possibility in the longer term, especially if the economic, humanitarian, and political costs of war prove to be higher than the parties can bear, or if military operations fail to achieve decisive objectives. Therefore, examining these scenarios does not constitute definitive predictions, but rather aims to understand potential trends by analyzing the conditions and opportunities for their realization within a highly complex and rapidly evolving regional context that remains open to multiple paths.

Hasan Al-Dajah — Professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University