Written by Nathaniel Brooks.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has entered a precarious phase, with unpredictable outcomes that could reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. Unlike historical wars that offer some precedent, such as the rapid Israeli victory in 1967 or the protracted U.S. struggle in Iraq in 2003, this confrontation may follow a unique trajectory. Concerns are mounting that a cornered Iranian regime could resort to unconventional tactics, including terrorism, chemical weapons, or even crude nuclear devices. As the international community watches closely, the stakes for regional stability and global security have never been higher.
Historical Analogies and Their Limits
To understand the potential paths of the Israel-Iran conflict, analysts often draw parallels with past wars. The Six-Day War of 1967 is a favored comparison for Israeli strategists, who recall how a preemptive strike decimated Egypt’s air force, paving the way for a swift victory over multiple Arab states. Israel’s current campaign has similarly begun with notable successes, including precise strikes on Iranian targets. However, Iran’s nuclear facilities, many of which are deeply buried and dispersed, present a far more complex challenge than the exposed airfields of 1967.
Another analogy is the 2003 Iraq War, launched by the United States to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Initially hailed as a triumph, the campaign devolved into a prolonged insurgency that cost thousands of lives and destabilized the region. Critics in Washington fear a similar quagmire if Israel’s actions, potentially supported by the U.S., aim for regime change in Iran. The Iraq experience underscores the risks of underestimating the long-term consequences of military intervention, particularly when the goal is to dismantle a deeply entrenched regime.
Yet, the Israel-Iran conflict may defy these precedents. Iran’s limited conventional military options, combined with Israel’s constrained weapons stockpiles, suggest that a prolonged conventional war is unsustainable for either side. This dynamic increases the likelihood of unconventional escalation, a scenario that Western security officials view with growing apprehension. The unique nature of this conflict demands a careful assessment of both historical lessons and current realities.
Iran’s Unconventional Threat
Western policymakers are increasingly concerned that a desperate Iranian regime, facing defeat in a conventional conflict, might turn to unconventional means to strike back. Iran’s conventional military capabilities are limited compared to Israel’s advanced arsenal, which includes cutting-edge missile defense systems and air superiority. A senior official noted that Iran’s inability to retaliate effectively through traditional means is a key factor preventing the conflict from escalating into a broader war. However, this limitation could push Tehran toward more insidious tactics.
Iran has been accused of maintaining covert biological and chemical weapons programs, which could enable deniable attacks on Israeli or American targets. Such weapons, if deployed, could cause significant casualties without requiring the precision of conventional strikes. For example, a chemical attack in a densely populated area like Tel Aviv would not only inflict physical harm but also sow panic, undermining Israel’s sense of security. The plausibility of this scenario is heightened by Iran’s history of supporting proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, which have used unconventional tactics in past conflicts.
The most alarming prospect is Iran’s potential to leverage its nuclear capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran possesses a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, just short of the 90% needed for a nuclear weapon. Experts note that even 60% enriched uranium could be used to create a crude nuclear device, deliverable via aircraft, truck, or shipping container. Such a weapon, while less sophisticated than a traditional warhead, could establish Iran as a nuclear power and shift the regional balance of power.
Another possibility is the use of a “dirty bomb,” which combines conventional explosives with radioactive material to contaminate a wide area. A senior Western official highlighted the risk of such a device being detonated near a strategic location, such as the Israeli port of Haifa, which handles significant trade and military logistics. The psychological and economic impact of a dirty bomb would be profound, even if the immediate loss of life were limited. These scenarios underscore the need for robust intelligence and preemptive measures to counter Iran’s unconventional capabilities.
Challenges of Targeting Iran’s Nuclear Program
Israel’s objective of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program is central to the current conflict, but achieving this goal is fraught with difficulties. Unlike the exposed targets of the Six-Day War, Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as the heavily fortified Fordow site, are designed to withstand conventional airstrikes. The U.S. possesses specialized munitions, such as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, capable of penetrating deeply buried targets, but even these offer no guarantee of success. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has argued that even American-led strikes could delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions by only a few months.
The complexity of targeting Fordow and other sites is compounded by Iran’s strategic dispersal of its nuclear infrastructure. Facilities are spread across the country, some in remote mountainous regions, making a comprehensive strike logistically challenging. Israel’s limited “magazine depth”—its stockpile of precision-guided munitions—further constrains its ability to sustain a prolonged bombing campaign. These limitations have led some in Washington to speculate that the U.S. may join a second phase of strikes, particularly if the goal shifts from delaying Iran’s nuclear program to destroying it outright.
However, the pursuit of regime change, as advocated by some Israeli hardliners, carries significant risks. The 2003 Iraq War demonstrated that toppling a regime often leads to chaos, with power vacuums filled by extremist groups or rival factions. Iran, with its diverse population and complex political system, could descend into similar instability, potentially fueling regional conflicts and refugee crises. The prospect of U.S. involvement in such a campaign is particularly contentious, given President Donald Trump’s public commitment to avoiding Middle Eastern wars.
Trump’s recent speech in Riyadh emphasized diplomacy over military intervention, criticizing past U.S. efforts to impose change through force. His call for a deal between Israel and Iran reflects a desire to de-escalate tensions, but the current trajectory of the conflict suggests that diplomatic solutions are elusive. The interplay between military action and diplomatic rhetoric will be critical in determining whether the U.S. becomes further entangled in the Israel-Iran war.
Our Take
The Israel-Iran conflict presents a volatile mix of military ambition and existential stakes, with the potential to spiral into a broader catastrophe. Israel’s early successes, while impressive, are unlikely to deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program, given the fortified and dispersed nature of its facilities. The specter of unconventional retaliation, from chemical weapons to crude nuclear devices, is a sobering reminder of the risks of cornering a regime that perceives itself as fighting for survival. Western policymakers must prioritize intelligence-sharing and defensive measures to mitigate these threats while exploring diplomatic off-ramps to prevent escalation.
President Trump’s reluctance to pursue regime change is a prudent stance, given the lessons of Iraq and the complexities of Iran’s political landscape. However, the U.S. cannot remain on the sidelines if Israel’s campaign falters or if Iran escalates unconventionally. A balanced approach, combining targeted military pressure with renewed diplomatic efforts, offers the best hope for containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions without plunging the region into chaos. The international community must act swiftly to avoid a scenario where desperation and vengeance dictate the course of this conflict, threatening global security in the process.
