US Intervention in the Iran War: Tehran’s Response in Four Scenarios
Published in Deutsche Welle Bulgaria
(Bulgaria) on 22 June 2025
by Daniel Smilov (link to original)
(Bulgaria) on 22 June 2025
by Daniel Smilov (link to original)
Translated from
by Georgi T. Dimitrov.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
U.S. intervention in the Israel-Iran war will have enormous significance for world politics. Washington’s decision to involve itself in the conflict is a big risk for President Donald Trump who, in the first six months of his presidency, has managed to abandon almost every one of his campaign promises.
The Ukraine war was not resolved within 24 hours but Russia did use Washington’s sympathy to escalate both its campaign and its demands. Trump’s tariffs caused uncertainty in the global economy, with even something like “predictability," once taken for granted, now gone. Trump’s big trade deals are mostly smoke through which we can watch the decline of U.S. international authority. This has had a negative effect on both the interest the U.S. pays on its national debt as well as on the U.S. economy as a whole — it is highly likely there will be a slowdown or even a recession. Getting involved in a Middle East war is the latest major broken promise.
Trump’s falling approval ratings and the MAGA turmoil caused by U.S. hostilities with Iran mean that the intervention must be an unequivocal success for the president to stabilize his political standing. The rest of the world is also facing a dilemma — if the U.S. fails in Iran, then Washington’s international standing will collapse. This will have dramatic consequences for both Europe and Bulgaria.
Here are the four scenarios:
Scenario 1: Iran Sits Down To Negotiate
This will be a success for Trump and Israel — Iran’s government decides to ensure it remains in power and buys time by temporarily giving up its nuclear program and abandoning the military support it provides to its regional proxies. This would be a rational response because the Iranian regime is currently weak. The U.S. intends to physically destroy nuclear sites that have an obviously non-civilian purpose. It is undeniable that Iran enriches uranium for weapons and that it aims to obtain the technology that would allow it to produce a nuclear bomb in weeks. It seems, for now, that the U.S. and Israeli bombardment has slowed down this timeline.
If Iran admits failure and sits down to negotiate, Trump and Israel will have achieved a temporarily peaceful Middle East in which Tehran’s regional ambitions for military and political influence would be dramatically curtailed. The U.S.-Israeli operation will continue until Iran’s military infrastructure is destroyed — specifically and especially until the regime’s ability to use ballistic missiles against its neighbors has been nullified.
If this occurs, the U.S. will buy itself time, negotiating advantages in other important international conflicts. First, Russia, having lost an important ally, will be more open to negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict. Second, America’s international standing as a superpower would be reinstated, which will help service Washington’s enormous national debt. Finally, China, having paid close attention to this chain of events, may rethink the timing of its possible aggression and occupation of Taiwan.
U.S. actions would undoubtedly be questioned on international law grounds, yet Washington would have a good argument for its involvement in curtailing Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the world — from Saudi Arabia to Europe — would breathe a sigh of relief if the ayatollahs are reliably prevented from creating a nuclear bomb. In the end, there are no parallels with Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, a war for territory. This first scenario is also the best outcome for the rules-based international order.
Scenario 2: Iran Becomes a Network of Multimillion Militias
Iran may not give in, regardless of the loss of its military infrastructure and a large part of the commanders of its army. In spite of being crippled and having limited options, the regime could transform into a network of independent militarized groups, partially coordinated through a military-religious authority, something like an Islamic State 2. This is likely because neither the U.S. nor Israel has plans for putting boots on the ground. Additionally, Iran would continue to have significant resources if China persists in buying large quantities of its oil. Russia and China have no interest in a full victory for the U.S. and Israel, making this rather likely.
Such an outcome would be tragic for the Iranian people because it would put their country on the path to becoming a Syria or an Iraq. This could also lead to wholesale destabilization of the Middle East through a series of civil wars, nation-state conflicts, and mass migration.
This instability would mean that the U.S. would have to spend significant attention and resources on the region, including the deployment of U.S. Army personnel, aircraft carriers and other valuable equipment. All U.S. forces would be subjected to potential terrorist and other attacks, making U.S. involvement rather costly.
It is also likely that the price of oil would be unstable, causing uncertainty for the world economy. This is also bad for Europe and Ukraine because Washington would be focused on the Middle East, and Ukraine could be traded against Russian neutrality in Iran.
Scenario 3: Escalation and Involvement of Other Superpowers
The conflict may expand if Iran attempts to block the export of oil through the Persian Gulf. If that were to happen, several other countries’ interests would be threatened and the consequences would be unpredictable.
The price of crude oil, in this scenario, may go up dramatically, and solving such a crisis would take wisdom paired with strenuous effort — qualities that are currently lacking.
Scenario 4: Iran Democratizes and Achieves Peace for Itself
This is a best-case scenario that is, alas, the least likely outcome.
Europe Must Not Waste Any Time
The alarming parallel is with the U.S. intervention in Iraq, in which Washington also entered a military conflict without a clear plan for ending the conflict. There are scenarios in which the conflict with Iran will conclude swiftly, yet there are others in which it will not.
Furthermore, in Iraq, the U.S. had boots on the ground to bring about regime change and a vision for post-military governance. Currently, there is no such vision, and its absence suggests a bet on Iran’s ungovernability. A colossal experiment of this nature has never been successful. There are not many examples of large countries that have capitulated due to aerial bombardment and missile attacks. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is in its fourth year despite the massive numbers of Russian soldiers supporting Moscow’s aerial campaign. During World War II, Germany and Japan did not yield because of bombardments — Japan’s decisive cause for surrender was the U.S. atomic arsenal and Joseph Stalin's threat of a ground invasion.
No matter what the war’s outcome may be, the conclusion for Europe is singular: The U.S. will have long-term engagements in other regions, and Europe must accomplish military autonomy. This requires not just money, which Europe is currently spending liberally, but coordination and unity. Without coordination and unity, even tripling Europe’s defense spending will produce slow and ineffectual results. The U.S. entrance into another Middle East conflict is a further reminder of this strategic necessity, a necessity which should not result in hemming, hawing and decrying Europe’s weaknesses, as that would be neither truthful nor useful.
The time to act is now.
The Ukraine war was not resolved within 24 hours but Russia did use Washington’s sympathy to escalate both its campaign and its demands. Trump’s tariffs caused uncertainty in the global economy, with even something like “predictability," once taken for granted, now gone. Trump’s big trade deals are mostly smoke through which we can watch the decline of U.S. international authority. This has had a negative effect on both the interest the U.S. pays on its national debt as well as on the U.S. economy as a whole — it is highly likely there will be a slowdown or even a recession. Getting involved in a Middle East war is the latest major broken promise.
Trump’s falling approval ratings and the MAGA turmoil caused by U.S. hostilities with Iran mean that the intervention must be an unequivocal success for the president to stabilize his political standing. The rest of the world is also facing a dilemma — if the U.S. fails in Iran, then Washington’s international standing will collapse. This will have dramatic consequences for both Europe and Bulgaria.
Here are the four scenarios:
Scenario 1: Iran Sits Down To Negotiate
This will be a success for Trump and Israel — Iran’s government decides to ensure it remains in power and buys time by temporarily giving up its nuclear program and abandoning the military support it provides to its regional proxies. This would be a rational response because the Iranian regime is currently weak. The U.S. intends to physically destroy nuclear sites that have an obviously non-civilian purpose. It is undeniable that Iran enriches uranium for weapons and that it aims to obtain the technology that would allow it to produce a nuclear bomb in weeks. It seems, for now, that the U.S. and Israeli bombardment has slowed down this timeline.
If Iran admits failure and sits down to negotiate, Trump and Israel will have achieved a temporarily peaceful Middle East in which Tehran’s regional ambitions for military and political influence would be dramatically curtailed. The U.S.-Israeli operation will continue until Iran’s military infrastructure is destroyed — specifically and especially until the regime’s ability to use ballistic missiles against its neighbors has been nullified.
If this occurs, the U.S. will buy itself time, negotiating advantages in other important international conflicts. First, Russia, having lost an important ally, will be more open to negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict. Second, America’s international standing as a superpower would be reinstated, which will help service Washington’s enormous national debt. Finally, China, having paid close attention to this chain of events, may rethink the timing of its possible aggression and occupation of Taiwan.
U.S. actions would undoubtedly be questioned on international law grounds, yet Washington would have a good argument for its involvement in curtailing Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the world — from Saudi Arabia to Europe — would breathe a sigh of relief if the ayatollahs are reliably prevented from creating a nuclear bomb. In the end, there are no parallels with Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, a war for territory. This first scenario is also the best outcome for the rules-based international order.
Scenario 2: Iran Becomes a Network of Multimillion Militias
Iran may not give in, regardless of the loss of its military infrastructure and a large part of the commanders of its army. In spite of being crippled and having limited options, the regime could transform into a network of independent militarized groups, partially coordinated through a military-religious authority, something like an Islamic State 2. This is likely because neither the U.S. nor Israel has plans for putting boots on the ground. Additionally, Iran would continue to have significant resources if China persists in buying large quantities of its oil. Russia and China have no interest in a full victory for the U.S. and Israel, making this rather likely.
Such an outcome would be tragic for the Iranian people because it would put their country on the path to becoming a Syria or an Iraq. This could also lead to wholesale destabilization of the Middle East through a series of civil wars, nation-state conflicts, and mass migration.
This instability would mean that the U.S. would have to spend significant attention and resources on the region, including the deployment of U.S. Army personnel, aircraft carriers and other valuable equipment. All U.S. forces would be subjected to potential terrorist and other attacks, making U.S. involvement rather costly.
It is also likely that the price of oil would be unstable, causing uncertainty for the world economy. This is also bad for Europe and Ukraine because Washington would be focused on the Middle East, and Ukraine could be traded against Russian neutrality in Iran.
Scenario 3: Escalation and Involvement of Other Superpowers
The conflict may expand if Iran attempts to block the export of oil through the Persian Gulf. If that were to happen, several other countries’ interests would be threatened and the consequences would be unpredictable.
The price of crude oil, in this scenario, may go up dramatically, and solving such a crisis would take wisdom paired with strenuous effort — qualities that are currently lacking.
Scenario 4: Iran Democratizes and Achieves Peace for Itself
This is a best-case scenario that is, alas, the least likely outcome.
Europe Must Not Waste Any Time
The alarming parallel is with the U.S. intervention in Iraq, in which Washington also entered a military conflict without a clear plan for ending the conflict. There are scenarios in which the conflict with Iran will conclude swiftly, yet there are others in which it will not.
Furthermore, in Iraq, the U.S. had boots on the ground to bring about regime change and a vision for post-military governance. Currently, there is no such vision, and its absence suggests a bet on Iran’s ungovernability. A colossal experiment of this nature has never been successful. There are not many examples of large countries that have capitulated due to aerial bombardment and missile attacks. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is in its fourth year despite the massive numbers of Russian soldiers supporting Moscow’s aerial campaign. During World War II, Germany and Japan did not yield because of bombardments — Japan’s decisive cause for surrender was the U.S. atomic arsenal and Joseph Stalin's threat of a ground invasion.
No matter what the war’s outcome may be, the conclusion for Europe is singular: The U.S. will have long-term engagements in other regions, and Europe must accomplish military autonomy. This requires not just money, which Europe is currently spending liberally, but coordination and unity. Without coordination and unity, even tripling Europe’s defense spending will produce slow and ineffectual results. The U.S. entrance into another Middle East conflict is a further reminder of this strategic necessity, a necessity which should not result in hemming, hawing and decrying Europe’s weaknesses, as that would be neither truthful nor useful.
The time to act is now.
Previous article![]( "Trump Did What Had To Be Done")
Next article![]( "Middle East: From Nuclear Agreement to Preventive Attack, Who’s in Control?")