Rising tensions between the United States and Iran have left both countries one spark away from the fire. The unprecedented buildup of U.S. military forces in the Middle East—relying on Washington’s gunboat diplomacy—has clearly increased the risk of war—which has engulfed Iran and the region, with far-reaching regional and global costs.
Following the crackdown on recent protests in Iran, US President Donald Trump announced that it was time to remove Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His administration then deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and supporting warplanes, along with various air defense assets—including the THAAD and Patriot missile systems—across the Middle East.
As military assets pile up, Trump has threatened that if Iran does not agree to a deal, “the next attack will be much worse” than the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities last June.
From the US perspective, a favorable deal would require Iran to dismantle its nuclear enrichment program and ballistic missile capabilities, as well as scale back its regional influence. Such maximum demands, coupled with Tehran’s distrust of negotiations with the US, make a deal unlikely. Alauddin Borojerdi, a member of Iran’s parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, explained on Monday that civilian nuclear capabilities, as well as missile and drone capabilities, represent a “red line” for Tehran.
This does not indicate a permanent political stalemate. However, Tehran interprets increased US demands as a potential threat of regime change—an idea repeatedly emphasized by Trump and hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv. In this context, another US strike would represent an “existential threat” to the Islamic Republic, removing any incentive for restraint.
The impact of any US military action against Iran will depend primarily on the type, scale, and targets of the attack, leading to a serious crisis in Iran, across the region, and globally.
Trump favors surgical and targeted military operations, which would likely combine the leadership’s beheading with efforts to significantly damage Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) military bases, Basij units—paramilitary forces under IRGC control—and police stations, which the U.S. designates responsible for firing on protesters.
Any attempt by the US to impose regime change through military means will undoubtedly lead to dangerous consequences domestically and regionally. In Iran, an attack could lead to a consolidation of power. But it could lead to full takeover by the IRGC or even internal conflict.
As with last year, the attack on Iran resulted in Iranians rallying behind the flag and rejecting regime change for a number of reasons. First, Iranians fear a situation similar to Syria and Libya where the state has collapsed. Second, there is no credible moderate opposition that can bring about change. Third, Iran has strong socio-political cohesion.
Political institutions, the military and the IRGC are well organized and benefit from the substantial resources generated by the sanction-induced rentier system. Furthermore, significant sections of society—especially working-class groups referred to as “revolutionaries”—aligned with this structure.
If the attack succeeds in targeting the Islamic Republic’s senior leadership, it could trigger a succession of crises, creating a decision-making vacuum and increasing regime competition. In this situation, tensions between state institutions and military-security institutions will increase. Given the concentration of hard power in the hands of the IRGC, the possibility of a military-dominated state will increase.
The US and Israel may seek to encourage the outbreak of a civil war to weaken Iran geopolitically. Last month, there were calls from some US officials, such as Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, to arm Iranian protesters. This could easily extend to armed groups, and there are many who have clashed with Iranian authorities that the US could turn to.
Among them are Mojahideen-e Khalq (MEK), previously designated a “terrorist” organization by the US and the European Union (EU); the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an armed Kurdish group seeking the partition of Iran’s western Kurdistan province; Al-Ahwaziyaan Arab nationalist movement supporting the secession of the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the southwest; Jaish al-Adl (Jundallah), an armed group operating in southeastern Iran; And pan-Turkic factions in the northwest are pursuing an alliance of Turkic populations in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Iran.
Faced with Washington’s ever-escalating rhetoric and track record of regime change operations, Iran has adopted a so-called madness strategy, simultaneously issuing signals of reconciliation and confrontation. That stance was evident in Tehran’s expressed openness to establishing a negotiating framework with the US, including Khamenei’s speech on Monday, which warned Any military attack on Iran would lead to a “regional war”, underscoring the state’s prevailing preference to prevent regime change at all costs – even at the risk of regional and global consequences.
Iran has made clear that it will retaliate, including with allied forces in the region, potentially drawing Israel and the Gulf states into a wider regional conflict. This will lead to political instability and economic insecurity, leading to increased flows of refugees and migrants, mainly from the Gulf states, as well as to Europe.
Furthermore, if Iran were to attack the Strait of Hormuz or transport to Gulf energy infrastructure, global oil and gas prices would rise, market volatility would increase, inflationary pressures from high energy costs and knock-on effects on fragile economies, which would further exacerbate migration pressures.
In the current scenario, any US military escalation is a threat not only to Iran but to the entire region. The history of the Middle East shows that once a conflict starts, it spreads like wildfire and destabilizes the entire region in unpredictable ways.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.