The Iran–Israel–US war: Heading towards disaster

The long-simmering shadow conflict in West Asia has now openly and decisively entered a new phase—an overt trilateral confrontation that may well shape the geopolitical equilibrium of the region for the next few years. I have followed the developments on the nuclear narrative with reference to Iran, first from 1992, when Iran went on a campaign of acquiring ballistic and cruise missiles.

Thereafter, from 2003, when the enrichment issue became one of the hottest topics in international geopolitics. Now, after months of escalating exchanges between Iran and Israel, the US has decisively stepped into the fray. Its aircraft employed their largest conventional weapon—the 30,000 lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busting bombs—against three reported Iranian military-industrial targets. This move marks both military escalation and a geopolitical shift, something anticipated for long with far-reaching implications.

The use of such formidable weaponry by the US is not merely symbolic. It represents an intent to break Iran’s apparent impunity. Whether this move constitutes the apex of US involvement or the opening act in a wider theatre depends entirely on the next 48 hours—specifically, the battle damage assessments (BDA) of the strikes will govern that. Should the US rule that the targets—presumed to be hardened underground nuclear and missile facilities—have been effectively neutralised, we may see a strategic pause. Washington may frame the action as punitive and limited, allowing space for de-escalation. If not, it can be anybody’s guess which way this goes.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

If the assessment reveals only partial damage, then a dangerous threshold may be crossed. Tehran, sensing weakness, may escalate further. Washington, drawn in deeper, may find it politically and militarily difficult to retreat. The world would then be staring at the vortex of a regional war with the potential to spiral. That is the current danger.

For Israel, this moment is both existential and deeply fraught. Lots has been achieved by it in neutralising various Iranian proxies, but the famed Iron Dome is apparently leaking under sustained pressure—not because of failure, but because no system is designed for indefinite saturation by drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic projectiles. Israel’s ammunition stocks are reportedly nearing dangerous lows. Even with emergency US resupply, the country faces a war on multiple fronts with dwindling domestic reserves. The fact that it is reported to be quietly approaching India for some military replenishments underscores the gravity of the situation.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

Iran’s response to the US strikes will be critical. It may feel cornered but not defeated. Its regime, though under pressure, shows no imminent signs of internal collapse. Mere strikes on military leadership or command infrastructure may not suffice to trigger regime change—something both Israel and the US may quietly desire. Without visible upheaval from within, the leadership may instead double down, using the war to consolidate power at home. In desperation, it could expand the conflict’s geography—possibly targeting the Strait of Hormuz. That would not only inflame the region but threaten global energy security, with immediate consequences for nations like India.

President Donald Trump now owns part of this war. Domestic opinion remains cautious but not overwhelmingly averse to limited military action. However, American appetite for prolonged military involvement in the Middle East is extremely low. For Washington, the twin goals are clear: prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear breakout capability and ensure Israel is not militarily overwhelmed. Everything else is secondary.

This means the US will likely avoid a full-scale ground engagement or a push for regime change. However, the unintended consequences of limited wars are often catastrophic. As Clausewitz warned, war has a logic of its own once unleashed.

India, while geographically removed from the theatre of war, is already feeling its tremors. With over eight million Indians in the Gulf region, any escalation that threatens Gulf security directly impacts Indian interests. Rising oil prices, maritime insecurity in the Arabian Sea, and pressure from both Washington and Tel Aviv for military cooperation place New Delhi in a complex bind.

India’s close defence ties with Israel are well known. Yet, its diplomatic and economic outreach to Iran, particularly around Chabahar and regional connectivity, is also significant. The reports of Israel reaching out to India for emergency supplies, while not yet officially confirmed, suggest a trust in India’s reliability as a defence partner. New Delhi’s challenge will be to support Israel in meaningful ways—possibly through quiet logistical or intelligence cooperation—without burning bridges with Tehran or endangering Indian nationals in Iran or the Gulf.

What makes the I2US (Israel-US vs Iran) war so volatile is the absence of a clear end state. If Israel seeks the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Tehran may rebuild. If regime change is contemplated—even unofficially—it may prove far more elusive and bloodier than in Iraq or Libya. If the US wants merely to “punish” Iran and exit without achieving the ends, it risks emboldening both Tehran and its proxies. And if Iran believes it can ‘wait out’ American involvement and politically outmanoeuvre Israel, we are locked into a cycle of endless retaliations.

Crucially, a viable diplomatic off-ramp is nowhere on the cards. There is no neutral forum with the credibility and leverage to mediate. The UN Security Council is paralysed. The Arab world is divided and hesitant. Russia and China have condemned US involvement but offer nothing more. In this vacuum, the guns will continue to speak louder than diplomacy.

I perceive the next 48 hours to be decisive. If Iranian retaliation is swift and large-scale, Israel may be compelled to unleash an even more devastating air campaign. Since no land borders exist, territory is not at stake, but equally, territory cannot easily be used for anything decisive either. Perhaps, if the US confirms the effectiveness of its strikes and offers a pause, the ball will be in Tehran’s court in terms of further escalation. But if ambiguity or a grey zone persists, then miscalculation would be the biggest threat.

This war, which began in the shadows, is now dangerously close to consuming the region. The entry of the United States, the weakening of Israel’s defences, and the uncertain resilience of Iran’s regime form a combustible mix. Leaders on all sides must now weigh whether escalation brings security—or only the abyss.

The writer is a member of the National Disaster Management Authority. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.