Kicking A Hornet’s Nest: Risks and Unintended Consequences of the War with Iran
by Marshal Auron
Political analysts have been in overdrive assessing the war, its risks and effects. There are so many disparate issues, collecting them in a high-level review may provide a better understanding of what is at stake. This is a volatile and evolving crisis, so more risks and consequences will certainly become evident as time passes, but in the meantime, this review focuses on several areas:
Clarity of objectives and US military and foreign relations effectiveness
US’s international standing with allies and rivals
Domestic approval and support
Effects on antisemitism and Islamophobia
Global and domestic economic effects
Spread of terrorism
Sources used in preparing this review are listed at the conclusion of the article for more focused information.
1) Clarity of objectives and US military and foreign relations effectiveness– it is unclear what the war’s objectives are. Despite the numerous posts and briefings, the objectives, strategies and tactics are unclear. There also appears to be a difference between US objectives and Israel’s.
Iran is a terrorist state. Since 1979, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been a major supporter of terrorism around the world. Their client groups in the Middle East are notable: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran’s hatred of Israel and its existence has led to a series of terrorist attacks and wars over the last five decades. The Islamic extremist government is far more authoritarian than the previous Shah’s regime and has no regard for civil freedoms or women’s rights.
It is difficult to argue with ridding the world of an oppressive state that funds terrorism and is on the verge of possessing nuclear bombs. However, the war objectives of the US and Israel have been unclear and have changed as the engagement has progressed. Below are the main objectives that have bubbled up, although it is becoming increasingly apparent that the US and Israel are not of the same mind:
Regime Change – It is unclear if the current war will mean the end of the Islamic Republic, the emergence of a more moderate version or just a change in leadership. Despite the heinous behavior of Iran’s government, it is difficult to effect a change in leadership or the entire government without a long-term US military commitment and/or the support of the rebellious elements that were protesting earlier in the year. They are in hiding and some of the potentially moderate leadership and knowledgeable negotiators have been killed in the attacks. A successful neutral to pro-Western regime change could stabilize the Middle East; alternatively, the country could split into various (perhaps warring) factions and further destabilize the region.
Destroy Iran’s war-making capabilities- especially its military leadership, navy and missiles that could be used to fire warheads. Despite success against missile positions and the Navy, defeating drone attacks has been elusive.
Weaken ability to further enrich uranium to create nuclear warheads – this is dependent on the ability to safely locate, remove or disarm the well-hidden enriched uranium. More on this below.
Weaken the terrorist client groups- but extremism may continue to live. Israel’s previous terrorist opponent was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) who received significant support from the Soviet Union. It is possible another disruptive, authoritarian country will replace Iran. Nevertheless, Israel is currently taking this opportunity to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon and weaken its position.
Domestic political considerations- going to war has often been a way to gain political support. Both the US and Israel face elections later this year (midterms for the US, Knesset or parliament for Israel which determines the Prime Minister). Success in the war may lead to a more favorable outcome; perceived failure could have the opposite effect. Issues in the US like DHS/ICE funding and the Epstein Files have moved off the front pages for the moment.
Unclear objectives may lead to a longer war and commitment of ground troops (like US involvement in Afghanistan (2001-2021) and Iraq (2003-2011); as well as further economic and political disruptions (see below).
The Islamic Republic’s aim (in addition to survival), appears to be disruption of the world economies by restricting the availability of crude oil and natural gas (liquid petroleum gas and liquid natural gas). This is accomplished largely by targeting missiles, drones and mines against oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, oil refineries and natural gas facilities in the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Bahrain).
There are essentially three paths for the US and Israel:
Ceasefire and/or agreement- likelihood is uncertain with a fractured Iranian state, uncertainty about who is really in control, and the difficulty in meeting the objectives above. Negotiations through Pakistan are occurring at this writing (Trump’s “15 Points”) and do not look hopeful.
Escalation and Troop commitment - particularly to open the Strait of Hormuz. Some analysts believe it would lead to many casualties, and the beginning of a long-term commitment to occupy Iran.
Surgically removing Iran’s enriched uranium- It is unlikely that the Iranian government will now return to the negotiating table and agree to anything like the failed JCPOA.1 Supposedly Iran has sufficient material to make 10 bombs, if the material is enriched further. That means a military operation, but it is unclear where the material is hidden; and of course it is not in plain sight. The suspected sites are likely underground, difficult to access and well defended. Once found, special care needs to be taken in handling and disposing of it. Blowing it up is probably not an option, since it could disperse hazardous materials. Such an operation may take thousands of specially trained forces. Should the Iranian government collapse, the risk of this material falling into the hands of another malicious power or Iranian factions is a considerable risk.
Ending hostilities without recovering and disposing of the enriched uranium will likely result in increased pressure to attack again, and the situation may get more complicated.
The war is revealing challenges in US political/military decision making, such as an inability to effectively use diplomacy, successful tactical operations versus a lack of effective strategy and end game, failure to consider control the Strait of Homuz before the attack, and the failure to recognize the effectiveness of drone attacks on allies in the Gulf States (UAE, Oman, Bahrain). Additionally, Iran’s long range missile capability was twice as long as believed since it was able to hit a US base in the Indian Ocean. Finally, military equipment, resources and troops are being diverted from Asia, weakening our ability to respond to China if they make a move against Taiwan.
2) US’s international standing with allies and rivals- President George H.W. Bush’s diplomatic ability to organize the coalition that defeated Iraq in the First Gulf War (1990-1991) is a monument to international cooperation. The Trump Administration’s “go it alone” approach has adversely affected an already weakened relationship with our NATO allies and the threats to the global economy over oil and gas will not endear us to India, Japan and China.
If the US is a “rules-based” society at home, it needs to be one in its international activities as well. Upsetting the global order with unilateral actions and disparaging allies over their so-called lack of support will continue to undermine the US’s standing in the world. Countries like China and Russia will carefully assess US behavior to see if we “chicken out” and back down in Iran. Our actions could influence their military decisions regarding Taiwan (China) and Eastern Europe (Russia).
3) Domestic approval and support- For the US, once again an American President has committed troops for a military operation without consulting Congress. Soon Congress could be asked to approve a $200 Billion appropriation to fund what Trump calls the “Iranian excursion”. If a President wants to benefit politically from such a military adventure, he needs to convince Congress and the people that there is a documented imminent threat and a critical need. Both Presidents Bush had a significant boost in their approval ratings when they started their respective Gulf Wars.
Length of the war, success of the war, effect on the economy and unfortunately the body count are some of the things that could affect the little support in the US this war has.
Support for the war in the US and Israel as of March 9th shortly after the war began:
Israel has been dealing directly with Iran and its proxies, including terrorist attacks and military operations in 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2021 as well as the Gaza War (2023-2025) and the 12 Day War with Iran (June 2025). Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, has been in power for 19 of the last 30 years and has been a long-standing voice for military action against Iran. Yair Lapid, Israel’s Opposition Leader recently wrote that:
This is a “just war” with moral clarity between good and evil— the world is in danger
Iran’s government is a terrorist organization that has hijacked the state
If a terrorist organization possesses nuclear weapons, such a war is justified, since for Israel this is a threat to their existence.
A quick end to war and relative stability will likely enhance Netanyahu and his Likud Party’s chance to retain control of the Israeli Government in the upcoming elections. It’s clear that Netanyahu has a more significant political “safety cushion” than Trump.
Differences in support and differences in objectives (and even differences in the reasons for the war) can lead to adverse effects on the US – Israeli relationship. The US has been a strong supporter of Israel since the moment of its birth in 1948 and as the only democracy in the region, Israel has been the benefactor of more military foreign aid over the years than any other nation.
Should the US’s involvement in Iran turn sour, the relationship with Netanyahu and the State of Israel itself could be at risk. If the US indeed backs down, a separate peace with Iran could be disastrous for Israel. Interestingly, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States all would like the US to remain and finish off the Iranian regime to ensure stability in the region.
4) Effects on Antisemitism and Islamophobia- Noa Tishby, Israel’s former Special Envoy for Antisemitism, once characterized antisemitism as the belief that the world would be better off without the Jews and characterized anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism, so that the world would be better off without the State of Israel. Criticism of Israel’s government is not a form of anti-Zionism, but it is a slippery slope and such criticism can be misconstrued as a form of hatred. Data from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) indicates that incidents in the US have increased dramatically since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel that precipitated the most recent Gaza War.
Islamophobia is the fear or hatred of Islam and is often due to a misunderstanding of the difference between mainstream Islam which like many religions values life, emphasizes mercy, justice, peace and extremist Islam (often called “Jihadism”) which glorifies suicide attacks and oppressing and killing others.2 The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has noted that there has been a significant increase in Islamophobia in the US in the last few years.
Lack of success in the Iran War and disagreements with Israel may result in additional increased instances of antisemitism/anti-Zionism. Continued violence and terrorist attacks may result in additional increased instances of Islamophobia.
5) Global and domestic economic effects - so far there have been several economic effects:
Tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has stopped due to Iranian attacks. 20% of the world’s crude oil is transported through there. Insurance companies are refusing to insure tankers in a war zone.
Oil refineries in the UAE and Bahrain have been damaged from Iranian missile and drone attacks. Desalinization plants in the Gulf States have been heavily damaged; they are heavily relied on to produce drinking water for the region. Travel, trade and the quality of life have been disrupted, undermining the perceived reputation of the Gulf states as a refuge and a safe place to live and do business. Qatar’s liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility is closed after a drone strike taking 20% of LNG off the market.
Oil and natural gas prices have soared which will increase the costs of transportation, food/agricultural products, manufactured goods, housing/construction, and travel/leisure. Inflation and shortages will increase affecting the global economy in general such as China, India and Japan. Lesser developed countries could be hard hit by soaring costs as well. India has received a sanctions exemption to purchase oil from Russia and China is increasing its purchases of Russian oil, helping Vladimir Putin’s weak economy. Inflationary pressures will also be felt due to increased demand for military supplies.
The Federal Reserve is currently holding interest rates steady due to the war rather than reducing interest rates at a time when the US economy is showing signs of weakness and employment growth is faltering.
Economic contagion is the spread of economic stress through interconnected financial, trade or investment channels, in the same way a communicable disease can spread. Depending on the underlying weakness of the economy, it is possible for an economic recession to be set off by a single shock, like increasing energy prices. At the same time, military spending on yet another war, particularly if it lasts for years, will not help America’s government spending and deficit problem: a rarely discussed crisis on the horizon.3 Certainly, the American people would benefit from spending the money for the war on health care, social welfare and education needs.
6) Spread of terrorism – What is left of the Iranian government is likely bent on revenge and seriously finding ways to elevate its level of disruption and terror. The new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, lost his wife, sister and sister’s child in the attack that killed his father and so to the extent he truly has control, revenge is likely. Terrorism can take the form of violent acts or cyberterrorism.
Continued support for proxy terror organizations, mobilization of sleeper terror cells and cyber attacks to strike the West are possibilities as well as continued attacks on US facilities abroad. Domestic US terrorism and war could have implications for civil liberties. The DOJ/FBI/Homeland Security Department are more focused on immigration issues and Trump’s desire for retribution rather than identifying terrorist threats. Acts of Terror could lead to curtailing civil freedoms in the US. Following 9/11, The USA Patriot Act and various national security policies enabled the U.S. government to expand surveillance, detention powers, and law-enforcement authority. This reduced privacy rights, due-process protections, and freedom of expression. Civil freedoms such as freedom of the press are now under attack for questioning the war.
If Iran is defeated, other malicious countries may be willing to step in and continue to support Iran’s proxies. Additionally, to the extent Israel’s attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon severely affect and harm the civilian population, it can drive more people into terrorist groups. Whether the war ends quickly or drags on, it is likely that there will be ongoing instability in Iran, Israel and the Gulf States for some time to come.
Sources
The Economist, March 20th- Operation Blind Fury
The Economist, March 13th- An Attack on the World Economy
GZERO Daily: March 23- Is Trump really talking to Iran?
March 20- Putin can’t help himself
March 17- Who’s paying for the Iran war?
March 11 - Release the Crude
March 9 - Who wants the Iran war?
March 6 - The end for Hezbollah
March 4 - Khamenei’s son— and heir?
Deutsche Welle: US-Israel war with Iran
RCSGS | Research - The Iran War and Its Global Consequences
After the strike: The danger of war in Iran | Brookings
The Atlantic: The Iran War Has Four Stages. We’re in the Second
Washington Week With The Atlantic: What Are the Trump Administration’s Objectives in Iran?, 3/13/26
Washington Week with The Atlantic full episode, 3/20/26
The Atlantic: Trump’s War With Iran and a New Danger at Home
The Atlantic: Netanyahu’s Very Useful War
Opinion | Iran Is a $1.3-Million-a-Minute War - The New York Times
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. Iran agreed to limit their nuclear capabilities and create transparency. Iran had also agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium (the material needed to make a bomb) by 98 percent and agreed to halt further enrichment. That material would either be diluted or sold. Trump withdrew from this “horrible” agreement in May 2018. If the US had remained in the JCPOA, there is a possibility that it could have prevented nuclear proliferation in Iran. One of the major criticisms of the JCPOA was negotiating with and making concessions to a terrorist Iran.
Islam is not inherently misogynistic; many communities emphasize gender equality, women’s rights and education. Extremist Islam, however, is often misogynistic, restricting women’s education, participation in public life, mobility, and imposing strict dress codes. Male control is justified through distorted interpretations of religious texts.
At year end 2025, the US’s $39 Trillion National Debt was 123% of GDP according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis and is projected to grow higher without major policy changes. Greater than 100% is considered a risk zone by economists. The war is costing around $1-2 billion each day and the Administration is planning to ask Congress for a $200 Billion war appropriation.