Escalating Tensions: Assessing the Risks of a Prolonged Conflict Between the US, Israel, and Iran

The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has entered a dangerous phase, marked by escalating strikes and heightened rhetoric. Although initial military outcomes appear favorable for the US and Israel, the risk of a protracted and costly war, reminiscent of the conflicts in Vietnam or Iraq, looms large. This analysis examines the current situation, potential escalation pathways, and the implications for regional and global stability.

Current State of the Conflict

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched large-scale attacks against Iranian military assets and leadership. These strikes resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, reportedly wounded. Iran has retaliated by targeting U.S. Military facilities and energy infrastructure in Gulf states, and Israel has increased airstrikes in Lebanon in response to rocket fire from Hezbollah. As of March 13, 2026, over 1,800 people have been killed, including 8 U.S. Service members and at least 175 students reportedly killed in a U.S. Strike on an Iranian elementary school.

Escalation Risks and Potential Pathways

Despite initial military successes in degrading Iran’s drone and missile capabilities, the conflict carries significant escalation risks. The potential deployment of up to 5,000 U.S. Marines, potentially to Kharg Island – a strategically important location near the Strait of Hormuz – raises the stakes considerably. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s daily oil supply passes, could cripple global economies.

Iran’s response to a potential ground operation is predicted to mirror the costly conflicts experienced by the U.S. In Vietnam and Iraq. Iranian officials have alluded to this possibility, warning of a protracted and devastating war. The conflict is expanding beyond direct confrontations, with reports of Iranian proxy groups, such as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI), conducting attacks in Europe, including attempted bombings at Jewish community sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The Evolving Iranian Leadership and Strategy

The deaths of key Iranian figures, including Ali Larijani and Gholamreza Soleimani, have triggered Iran’s pre-arranged succession plan. While leaders will be replaced, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is gaining increasing control within the Iranian hierarchy, potentially eclipsing the influence of the clerical leadership. The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War assesses that the U.S. Is systematically dismantling Iran’s ability to conduct drone and missile attacks, which are central to its overall strategy.

Yet, Iran continues to inflict damage on U.S. Forces, albeit at a decreasing rate. The IRGC is likely seeking to entrench the U.S. And its allies in a costly conflict, making withdrawal increasingly challenging.

Diplomatic Efforts and Ceasefire Prospects

As of March 15, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated he is not yet ready to pursue a deal to end the conflict, stating that any proposed terms from Iran are “not great enough yet.” This stance comes amidst continued attacks from Iran on countries in the Gulf and Israel, and reciprocal strikes from the U.S. And Israel. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has disputed claims that Iran is seeking a ceasefire or negotiations.

Looking Ahead

The conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran remains highly volatile. While the U.S. And Israel have achieved some initial military objectives, the risk of escalation into a prolonged and devastating war remains substantial. The evolving dynamics of Iranian leadership, the potential for proxy conflicts to expand, and the lack of progress in diplomatic efforts all contribute to a precarious situation. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether a path towards de-escalation can be found, or whether the region is destined for a protracted and bloody conflict.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Source: The Guardian