A significant confrontation with Iran seems likely. However, whether it’s termed a war, battle, or strike will depend largely on actions taken by the U.S. and Israel, as well as how leaders like President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu label it.
It also hinges on whether Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei instructs the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi proxies, and various terrorist groups to retaliate against Americans, Israelis, or even personnel from allied Gulf nations.
Regardless of terminology from the U.S. and Israeli leaders, Khamenei could incite a serious escalation with a counterattack that could lead to American or Israeli casualties.
Back in June 2025, Israelis referred to their conflict with Iran and subsequent missile attacks as the “12-day war,” while the U.S. dubbed the air operations aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions as “Operation Midnight Hammer.”
The military buildup near Iran is extensive, leaving a variety of options ready for President Trump: single-day operations, multiple strikes over time, or prolonged engagements aimed at neutralizing Iran’s missile infrastructure, key facilities associated with the Revolutionary Guard, or even wider military conflict similar to past interventions.
For context, NATO’s air campaign in Yugoslavia, known as Operation Allied Forces, started on March 24, 1999, lasted 78 days, and aimed to stop atrocities against ethnic Albanians before leading to the withdrawal of Serbian forces. It resulted in significant casualties, including both military and civilian lives.
Another NATO intervention in Libya against Gaddafi spanned about seven months, releasing nearly 7,000 bombing raids, causing substantial combatant casualties and some civilian deaths, with Gaddafi ultimately captured and executed in 2011. Following this, the second Libyan civil war erupted in 2014, showing how quickly conflicts can escalate and remain volatile.
President Trump has articulated four crucial boundaries for Iran, all of which Iran has reportedly breached. They are renewing efforts to enrich uranium for nuclear objectives, expanding their ballistic missile capabilities, funding militant affiliates throughout the region, and, unfortunately, perpetuating violence against their own citizens.
Despite facing serious challenges, Khamenei and his military commanders continue to mock the U.S. and its leadership, revealing a degree of bravado in their rhetoric. Yet, there seems to be friction between the regime’s diplomatic facade and the intense hostility expressed by its leaders.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the potential threats to U.S. forces and allies in Israel and the Gulf. Therefore, if President Trump decides to engage militarily, it should be with decisive and sustained force. Historically speaking, Iran has repeatedly rebuffed chances to ease tensions and change its aggressive conduct. The lack of decisive action from Iranian generals against the ruling clerics could be a significant factor.
Fanaticism often defies rational discourse, and the U.S. must not come across as deterred by the show of power from forces that lack credible military sophistication.
