War With Iran: Why Now and What Comes Next

Why It Matters

The war reshapes Middle‑East power dynamics, threatens global energy markets and forces the United States to reassess its strategic posture toward Iran and regional allies.

Key Takeaways

• US‑Israel strike eliminated Iran’s supreme leader
• Iran responded with hundreds of drones and missiles
• Conflict threatens Gulf energy supply chains
• Succession uncertainty could destabilize Iranian regime
• Diplomatic channels remain ambiguous, risking escalation

Pulse Analysis

The February 28 joint U.S.–Israel operation marked an unprecedented escalation, not only because it removed Iran’s long‑standing supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but also because it combined kinetic strikes with cyber and intelligence actions. By targeting IRGC infrastructure and senior command compounds, the coalition aimed to cripple Iran’s capacity for regional projection. Analysts note that the removal of a figure who had been the cornerstone of Iran’s foreign policy creates a power vacuum that could either fragment the regime or accelerate a hard‑line consolidation, each scenario carrying distinct risks for regional stability.

Iran’s swift retaliation—launching hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at U.S. installations, Israel and Gulf Cooperation Council members—underscores the immediacy of its deterrence doctrine. The attacks have already prompted heightened alert levels across the Persian Gulf, disrupting shipping lanes that move a sizable share of the world’s oil. Energy traders have reported price volatility, while neighboring states scramble to bolster air defenses. The broader geopolitical fallout includes renewed debates in Washington about the cost‑benefit calculus of direct military engagement versus proxy containment.

Looking ahead, the path to de‑escalation hinges on three variables: the internal succession dynamics within Tehran, the willingness of regional powers to mediate, and the United States’ strategic patience. If a moderate faction emerges, diplomatic overtures—potentially leveraging back‑channel negotiations—could open a window for a cease‑fire and a framework for nuclear discussions. Conversely, a hard‑line consolidation may entrench a pro‑conflict stance, compelling the U.S. to consider a longer‑term containment strategy. Stakeholders across the globe are watching closely, as the outcome will shape not only Middle‑East security architecture but also the credibility of international crisis management mechanisms.

Original Description

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched military, cyber, and intelligence operations against Iran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei was killed and strikes were conducted on a broad array of targets, including other senior Iranian leadership compounds, IRGC bases, and missile launchers and production facilities. In response, Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles against U.S. bases, Israel and countries in the Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar.

With no signs of the conflict winding down and unclear goals and timelines from leadership in Washington, where is this war headed? Was there ever a serious prospect for negotiations between the United States and Iran? What is the likely impact of the death of Ayatollah Khamenei on succession and the stability of the regime? Is meaningful and lasting regime change or transformation possible?

Join Aaron David Miller as engages with the Brooking Institution’s Suzanne Maloney, International Crisis Group’s Ali Vaez, and Yale University’s Rob Malley on these and other Iran-related issues, on the next Carnegie Connects.