Was würde ein militärischer Streik gegen den Iran für den Nahen Osten bedeuten?
What Would a Military Strike on Iran Mean for the Middle East?
Was würde ein militärischer Streik gegen den Iran für den Nahen Osten bedeuten?
What Would a Military Strike on Iran Mean for the Middle East?
8 Kommentare
U.S. President Donald Trump has alternated between making [threats](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-trump-nuclear-program-ayatollah-says-threats-will-get-us-nowhere/) and suggesting [negotiations](https://www.axios.com/2025/03/19/trump-letter-iran-nuclear-deal) with Iran. His proposal of direct talks has so far been [dismissed](https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iran/200320251) and %5Brebuffed%5D(https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/08/trump-khamenei-iran-deal-00002946) by a regime that is deeply suspicious of Washington after the first Trump administration pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal.
Given the risk of military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program—which is, according to some analysts, [only weeks away](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/10/iran-nuclear-weapon-warhead-missile-how-soon/) from producing a deliverable weapon—*Foreign Policy* asked three experts to assess how a strike by the United States, Israel, or both acting together would affect Iranian politics, the strategic outlook of Saudi Arabia, and regional dynamics more broadly.
By Mahsa Rouhi, Aziz Alghashian, and Saeid Jafari
Could the USA possibly be weighing the risk of a direct strike in Iran as a way of getting the houthis to stop attacking shipping? Hitting mountainous terrain in order to get the houthis is basically impossible outside of glassing the whole place but directly striking Iran’s infrastructure wouldn’t be hard.
Now I know this sort of act would possibly lead to Iran doubling doubling further on making its own nuclear weapons but if the US and Israel have decided it’s happening anyway then you’ve got to do it now or it’s not happening at all.
Strikes without boots on the ground invasion would only cause Iran temporary setbacks.
The administration has neither the will nor the competency to conduct an occupation.
Yes let’s create another power vacuum in the region. What could go wrong.
What that would mean for the middle east is complete and utter chaos, let alone for the whole world. Imagine how oil prices would soar. I’m hard pressed to think of a country that wouldn’t be negatively impacted to a considerable degree.
Iran could build nuclear weapons, if they really wanted to, yet they haven’t, or haven’t been pushed to as yet.
A war between the US and Iran would likely cost the US trillions of dollars by the time the dust settled, and that doesn’t even account for opportunity cost due to the impact it would have on international trade.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was able to spin that scenario positively with his base, but surely he would take a knock domestically nonetheless.
The global south would be compelled to closen relations even more, countries would likely line up to become Brics+ members.
And what of Iran and Russia’s new partnership, does it not include military cooperation? It would certainly make for an interesting time in IR and diplomacy. I would kill to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Putin and Trump if the US attacked Iran.
>Coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear, military, and command infrastructure—including underground sites—are likely to escalate into a wider conflict, given the higher probability of retaliatory strikes.
What retaliatory strikes? The IDF operated completely unopposed over Teheran for hours in a much more limited strike than the one proposed. The US has more than enough power already deployed to the area to do the job.
I hope it doesn’t come to it, but I think it’s fair to say such a strike will easily address any potential short term retaliation. In the long term, IRGC may well continue pursuing nukes, but they are only going to be more vulnerable to any future strikes, especially with their current economic woes.
The real question is what are the feasible scenarios in which this strike does not take place. Even assuming IRGC calls off the Houthis, how likely is this to placate the current administration with regards to the prospect of a nuclear Iran? Setting them back even for one term would be more than enough of a win. Hell, it might be preferable to Trump to minimize the setback so that any trouble down the road can be pinned on any potential Dem successor.
That’s a good question. Taking out a stable regime in the Middle East never seems to end well, but arguably the risk of a nuclear Iran is much greater than this chaos. Unfortunately, it will definitely cause a lot of civilians to suffer.
Even gcc are against the strikes