Middle-East tensions: What a US attack on Iran would mean for the region and world? | World News

The Middle East is once again on the brink of war. The heavy US military buildup, open threats from Washington, and deep distrust of Tehran have created a moment when a single decision could plunge the region into conflict. Any US attack on Iran will not be limited or clean. This would risk tearing apart Iran’s political system, drawing neighboring states into strife and sending shockwaves through global energy markets.

Following the harsh crackdown on protests in Iran, US President Donald Trump declared that it was time to dismiss Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Shortly thereafter, the United States deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, additional fighter jets, and reinforced air defense systems, including THAAD and Patriot missiles, to the region.

When those forces arrived, Trump warned that if Iran refused to accept a new deal, “the next attack will be much worse than the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities last June.”

From Washington’s perspective, any acceptable deal would require Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, give up its ballistic missile capabilities, and reduce its regional influence. Tehran sees these demands as non-negotiable. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on Monday that civilian nuclear activities, as well as missile and drone capabilities, are a “red line” for Iran.

While diplomacy is not completely off the table, Iran’s leadership sees the US position as a thinly veiled effort at regime change. This suspicion has been strengthened by repeated statements by Trump and conservatives in Washington and Tel Aviv. In this environment, another US attack on Tehran would be seen as an “existential threat” that would eliminate any incentive for restraint.

What type of attack is this and why is it important?

The consequences of a US attack on Iran will largely depend on the scale and objectives of the attack. A limited strike would still carry great risks; a broader campaign could end in disaster.

Trump has shown a preference for tightly focused military actions. Any operation would likely aim to kill or neutralize senior leaders while also causing serious damage to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its bases, the Basij paramilitary force, and police units accused by the United States of opening fire on protesters.

Using military force to force regime change will almost certainly backfire. An attack on Iran could strengthen, rather than weaken, rigid control. Power may center around the state, shift decisively to the Revolutionary Guard, or degenerate into civil conflict.

A repeat of last year’s attacks could also cause many Iranians to rally around the flag. There are several reasons for this. Many fear the kind of state collapse seen in Syria or Libya. There is no credible, united moderate opposition ready to govern. And despite deep divisions, Iran maintains strong social and political cohesion.

The state’s institutions, its armed forces, and the Revolutionary Guard are highly organized and well-financed, thanks in part to a sanctions-based economic system. Large segments of society, especially working-class groups often described as “revolutionaries,” continue to adapt to this structure.

A dangerous power vacuum

If US strikes succeed in killing senior figures at the top of the Islamic Republic, Iran could face a succession crisis. Decision-making may stall, rival groups may vie for control, and tensions between civilian institutions and security forces may sharpen.

Given that the Revolutionary Guard holds much of the country’s hard power, such instability would increase the chances of Iran transforming into an overtly military-dominated state.

The risk would not be limited to this. The United States and Israel may try to take advantage of internal unrest to strategically weaken Iran. Last month, some US officials, including Republican Senator Ted Cruz, publicly called for arming Iranian protesters. This logic could extend to militant groups currently in conflict with Tehran.

These include the Mujahideen of the People (MEK), once listed as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU; PJAK, an armed Kurdish group seeking secession in western Iran; Al-Ahwaziya, who supports the secession of the oil-rich Khuzestan province; Jaish al-Adl (formerly Cundallah), operating in the southeast; and pan-Turkish groups in the northwest that aim to connect Turkic peoples in Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and Iran.

Regional war and global fallout

Faced with what it sees as a permanent threat of regime change, Iran has adopted a risky strategy of mixed signals, combining talk of possible negotiations with stern warnings. This was clear on Monday when Khamenei said that any military attack on Iran would trigger a “regional war”.

Iran has repeatedly made clear that it will retaliate directly or through allied forces. Israel and the Gulf countries could quickly intervene and the bilateral conflict could turn into a regional conflict.

The political and economic consequences of this will be severe. Instability could lead to large-scale capital flight, particularly from Gulf economies, and increase refugee and migration flows towards Europe.

Any attack by Iran on ships in the Strait of Hormuz or energy infrastructure in the Gulf would cause oil and gas prices to rise. This will increase inflation, shake global markets and put further pressure on already fragile economies, with further knock-on effects on migration and political stability far beyond the Middle East.

History offers a clear warning. When a war breaks out in the Middle East, it is rarely brought under control. The US attack on Iran will not be a single, decisive blow; This would be the spark of a conflict that could spread rapidly, with consequences that no one can fully control.