The U.S. and Israel attacking Iran is not just another war in a region already at war. It is a potentially transformative event that could dramatically alter the balance of power and politics in the Middle East and beyond. The rationale for such an attack is to stop Iran’s nuclear program and slow its growing influence in the Middle East. However, an attack on Iran would set off a volatile explosion of unintended consequences, destabilising forces and events that would affect far more than just the people of Iran. Force can only temporarily silence the Iranian nuclear program and its facilities. It cannot address the underlying reasons for Iran’s nuclear program or its broader ambitions in the Middle East. Rather than a solution to the problems of the Middle East, an attack on Iran would be more like a trigger that opens a Pandora’s box of unanticipated and potentially destabilising events.

The doctrine of the pre-emptive strike is at the root of all the troubles that we are facing today. Washington and Tel Aviv maintain that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes an existential threat, and therefore, there is no time to allow diplomacy to run its course. This argument is simply illegitimate. It violates the principles of sovereignty and international law, which have formed the backbone of the United Nations and the world order since the aftermath of World War II. The principle that has been violated is that a country has no right to carry out military strikes on the territory of another country that does not pose any threat to it, as long as it can come up with an argument that the country being attacked poses an existential threat to itself. This is not an argument that one can associate with the ideas of law and order in the world, which are ideas that the United States and Israel claim to stand for. The United States and Israel have carried out the attack, and thus, have increased the complexity of the Middle East crisis and undermined the world institutions that were established precisely to prevent such unilateral use of force. However, the damage to the field of diplomacy is far greater. The attack has taken into account the fact that Iran will not return to the negotiating table. Even before the attack, the Iranians had their reservations regarding the United States and the West. The attack served to only increase the rift between the two sides and to make the mutual trust between them almost zero. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the attack will lead to any change in the behaviour of the Islamic Republic in the region. Iran has built a large network of allies and proxies in the Middle East, ranging from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. In the face of an Israeli attack against Iran, it is not clear what they will do, but it is hard to believe that they will just stand idly by. The conflict is therefore not limited to the borders of Iran. It has already spilt over into the rest of the Middle East, and it is likely to continue to spread over the coming months and years.

Consequences will be numerous, and many will be negatively affected. The civilian population in Iran, as well as the surrounding countries, will suffer greatly. There will be innocent people who will be forced to leave their homes, who will be injured and traumatised by the action of yet another war. Also, the impact of the attack on the economy will be devastating. Iran is a major oil-producing country. Any disruptions in the supply of oil from Iran will lead to a sharp increase in oil prices. Such an increase will have serious impacts on the economies of countries ranging from Jakarta to Berlin. The attack on Iran will further exacerbate sectarian tensions and extremism in the Middle East and elsewhere. These are all phenomena that feed on instability. The US and Israel will also lose a great deal of standing in the Western world and elsewhere in the non-Western world. America’s Western allies have long warned of the dangers of solo military adventures. They will now distance themselves from a move that they do not agree with and that the rest of the world will disagree with. America and Israel’s rivals, such as Russia and China, will be in a position to capitalise on the negative publicity that the US and Israel will receive in the media worldwide. The American-Israeli move will have many more far-reaching consequences. It undermines the principle of the rule of law in international relations. The system of collective security that has been built up since 1945 is also at risk.

Solving the current crises will have to begin with the realisation that militarism does not create security. The United States and Israel have to get used to accepting two air strikes per annum rather than an unending escalation of conflict from which neither seems able to withdraw. The talks for a new nuclear agreement have to start again from scratch, with a different structure and format this time around. As opposed to the original P5+1 talks (six major powers of the world talking to a tiny country), the major actors from the Middle East who were not part of the negotiations in Geneva must also be included in the new talks – that is, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf countries. Moreover, the confidence-building measures proposed in recent weeks (such as a package of sanctions relief offered to Iran in exchange for halting its uranium enrichment activities and verifying that these activities have actually ceased) should also be taken into account. It is essential to strengthen the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency so that they can guarantee any successful agreement and settle disputes arising from the implementation of its provisions. The dialogue on multilateral issues must be broadened, from security to trade and culture. In this respect, it is vital to abandon the traditional balance of power mentality, in which one country’s gain is always the other’s loss, and adopt a different mindset – one that bears in mind the features that we share and our interdependencies.

The role of civil society organisations in this new phase must be taken seriously. Track 2 diplomacy – which includes academics, businessmen and NGOs – is essential for strengthening the grassroots confidence-building process. Bilateral economic cooperation agreements on energy, as well as infrastructure development, could be a key factor in the stability of the peace process. Rather than being the source of many problems, the sanctions regime needs to be reformed: neither the overall sanctions against Iran nor the citizen sanctions in the Islamic Republic have achieved their intended goals, but instead sparked even more mistrust toward the West. Instead of harming the population of the countries in dispute, the sanctions should aim to focus exclusively on the ruling elite in each country, in order to minimise the unintended economic consequences on the general population. Ultimately, the West must come to terms with the fact that greater acceptance of Western policies and a reduction in anti-Western sentiment will require the resolution of a large number of pressing social, political and economic grievances.

The costs of war far outweigh any potential gains. Any short-term reduction in Iran’s capability to harm by bombing will be more than offset by the long-term damage to any potential for peace. The most effective way to achieve a lasting and realistic peace is through ongoing negotiations in which all sides receive assurances and make concessions. The US and Israel must adopt a policy of accommodation based on the knowledge that the fate of their own countries is inextricably linked to the fate of the Middle East.

The attack on Iran heightens the risks of humanitarian disaster, economic chaos, terrorism and violations of international law. But that doesn’t mean the crisis is inevitable or irreversible. Diplomacy, understanding and peace are still possible provided that the concerned governments appear willing to achieve them. Strengthening international institutions and promoting intra-regional co-operation to resolve disputes peacefully rather than through force are pressing needs to prevent further deterioration of international relations. The world cannot afford to wait, as the after-effects of the assault on Iran will rapidly multiply beyond the direct victims of the present outbreaks of violence.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Maddox, B. and Vakil, S. (2026). US and Israel attack Iran, which launches counterstrikes: Early analysis from Chatham House experts. Chatham House. 

Reuters. (2026, February 28). US-Israeli attack triggers fear and panic in Iran. Reuters. 

© Eurasia Review