On the Brink: What a Wider War Could Mean for the US After Israel’s Strike on Iran

The Middle East is again ablaze, only this time, the fire threatens to leap far beyond the region’s traditional fault lines. In a move both audacious and incendiary, Israel has reportedly struck Iranian nuclear facilities, with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirming the death of key Iranian military leaders, including Revolutionary Guard chief Hossein Salami. Tehran, seething with rage and cornered by humiliation, has pointed fingers at Washington, alleging complicity. The United States, under President Trump, has denied direct involvement, though he admitted to being briefed in advance.

As geopolitical tensions spike and battle lines are redrawn across embassies, alliances, and military installations, one unavoidable question looms: What happens if Iran retaliates by striking US interests? Such an act could trigger not just a local flare-up but a sprawling, multi-theatre conflict involving the world’s most sophisticated military power. What would the US response be? How might Israel follow up? And what are the global implications of a new Middle Eastern warfront erupting amid an already fragile world order?

Iran’s Calculus
Iran’s immediate options are limited by a sobering reality: it cannot match Israel or the United States in conventional military terms. But this asymmetry has long informed Tehran’s reliance on hybrid warfare, proxy militias, cyber operations and sabotage. In the wake of Israel’s direct strike and Salami’s alleged death, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei may find himself pressured to act decisively, lest the regime appear vulnerable.

If Iran chooses to strike US military assets or diplomatic installations, as it has threatened in the past, it would not be unprecedented. In January 2020, following the killing of General Qassem Soleimani, Iran launched ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq. Though no lives were lost, the message was clear: US assets in the region are not untouchable.

But targeting US interests globally would be a dangerous escalation. Any such attack would likely provoke a direct US military response, potentially leading to a broader conflict neither side may truly desire.

How the US May Respond
While Trump’s prior knowledge of the Israeli strike raises questions about American complicity, his administration’s firm denial of involvement suggests an effort to avoid being dragged into an Israel-Iran war. Still, if Iran retaliates against American assets, the US response will likely follow one of three calculated pathways:

Surgical Strikes and Containment: The most measured response would be limited military strikes on Iranian missile sites, naval assets or Revolutionary Guard positions, especially within Iraq and Syria. This would serve to contain the conflict while avoiding an all-out war. The Biden administration opted for similar calibrated responses during previous Iranian provocations.

Expanded Middle East Deployment: If Iranian retaliation is severe, especially if it leads to American deaths, the US could reinforce its posture in the Gulf, deploying additional carrier strike groups, Patriot missile batteries and troops to key bases in Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE. This show of strength would signal deterrence while giving Washington room to explore diplomatic off-ramps.

Full Military Engagement: The most dangerous scenario would be a declaration of war-level engagement. This could involve extensive air and naval operations targeting Iranian infrastructure, nuclear facilities and command centers. Such a move, however, would draw the US into a protracted conflict, risking casualties and backlash at home and abroad.

US allies in NATO and the UN Security Council would likely push back against open warfare, calling instead for de-escalation. But if American lives are lost due to Iranian strikes, Washington’s calculus will pivot from diplomacy to dominance.

Domestic Politics
For President Trump, the situation poses a geopolitical and political conundrum. Having championed the Abraham Accords and taken a hard stance on Iran during his first term, Trump’s base would likely support a strong US response. Yet he must balance hawkish instincts with public fatigue over “forever wars”.

A misstep could alienate independent voters or ignite global anti-American protests. Trump's approach will likely involve calculated rhetoric, denying responsibility while promising overwhelming retaliation if American interests are hit. He may also pressure NATO and Arab allies to take on greater roles, positioning the US as a reluctant but prepared participant.

Could Israel Strike Again?
Yes, and it probably will. The success of Israel’s first strike will embolden its military and intelligence leadership, particularly if the international backlash is manageable and Iran’s nuclear ambitions are seen as existential threats. The Israel-Iran shadow war has unfolded for years, but this marks a significant turning point, a public, declared offensive on core infrastructure and high-ranking personnel.

Given the strategic doctrine of “Begin Doctrine” (Israel’s historical stance to prevent hostile states from acquiring nuclear weapons), a second wave of strikes, possibly on Natanz, Fordow or underground enrichment facilities, cannot be ruled out. Israel may feel compelled to follow through to ensure Iran’s nuclear programme is fully set back, especially before international actors call for a ceasefire.

However, more strikes could also backfire. Iran’s domestic population, already restive due to economic hardship and political repression, may unite under a banner of nationalism, buying the regime time and legitimacy. Furthermore, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen may escalate hostilities on Israel’s northern and southern fronts, stretching the IDF's capacity and opening up new battlefields.

The Global Ripple Effect
A widened conflict involving Israel, Iran and the US would ripple far beyond the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply passes, could become a flashpoint. Iran has previously threatened to close the waterway in times of conflict and even a temporary disruption could spike global oil prices, upending fragile post-pandemic economies.

Financial markets would reel, particularly in Europe and Asia. China and Russia, likely to side rhetorically with Iran, may use the conflict to undermine US influence in the region, even if they avoid direct military involvement.

Meanwhile, US allies in Europe may call for restraint, fearing a new refugee wave and the collapse of nuclear diplomacy. NATO could be pulled into emergency consultations, while regional players like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt may offer tacit support to Israel or push for swift de-escalation to prevent sectarian unrest.

Conclusion
The world stands at the precipice of a dangerous, complex and unpredictable escalation. With Israel having lit the fuse by striking Iranian nuclear sites and eliminating high-ranking IRGC commanders, Tehran is under immense pressure to respond. Should that retaliation directly target US interests, the American response will be swift and powerful, possibly transformative for the Middle East’s strategic landscape.

This moment demands sober judgment from all sides. For the US, the imperative is to deter Iranian aggression without being dragged into a war it didn’t start, yet cannot ignore if its people and assets are attacked. For Israel, the gamble it has taken must be weighed against the long-term security implications of fighting a multidimensional enemy. And for Iran, the path it chooses now will determine whether it climbs out of isolation or digs itself into deeper conflict.

The stakes could not be higher. One miscalculation could plunge the world into a war that no one truly wants but many might find impossible to avoid.

The writer is a journalist, international affairs columnist and a journalism educator with a PhD in Journalism. Contact: [email protected]