The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1], based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly monitors and analyses key geopolitical developments across the Middle East, the Balkans and on a global scale. The analysis “Unplanned conflict: Trump and the trap of war with Iran” provides a comprehensive overview of the genesis, dynamics and consequences of the escalation between Iran, Israel and the United States, with particular emphasis on how regional tensions and failed diplomatic efforts gradually pulled Donald Trump’s administration into direct military confrontation. Drawing on a well-grounded strategic and historical analysis, the text warns of the risks of further escalation and underscores the urgent need to return to diplomacy as the only sustainable path forward. The most important and relevant findings are highlighted below.
Tensions between Iran and Israel date back to 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, when the new theocratic authorities severed all diplomatic relations with Israel, branded it the “little Satan” and laid the ideological foundations for the export of the Islamic revolution. This doctrine was particularly geared towards supporting Shiite communities and movements across the Arab world – in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen – as Tehran sought to expand its geopolitical influence and undermine the stability of predominantly Sunni regimes in the region.[2]
In the decades that followed, hostility between the two states evolved through complex forms of indirect confrontation, including proxy wars, support for militant actors, the accelerated development of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, as well as a series of covert operations, cyberattacks and targeted assassinations by both sides. This long-standing rivalry culminated in the June war of 2025 – a brief but highly intense direct conflict – in which Israel launched extensive air strikes on key Iranian nuclear and military facilities, prompting Iran to respond with large-scale missile attacks and the mobilisation of its allied paramilitary networks throughout the region.
This conflict marked a turning point, as prolonged indirect hostility gave way to open military conflict, setting the stage for a deeper and more protracted regional crisis.
From the outset, the American administration demonstrated a clear commitment to resolving the crisis through diplomatic means. To this end, the United States initiated indirect negotiations with Tehran, mediated by Oman. The first round of talks, held in Muscat on 12 April 2025, concluded without tangible progress, though the door remained open for further dialogue. A new attempt followed on 6 February 2026, again in Muscat, while the final round of negotiations was held on 17 February in Geneva, aiming to establish a framework agreement on freezing Iran’s nuclear programme and reducing regional tensions. However, the talks collapsed on the same day, primarily due to irreconcilable differences on key issues – specifically uranium enrichment thresholds, ballistic missile constraints, and Iran’s regional footprint – triggering a dramatic escalation of the conflict.
The United States soon found itself deeply embroiled in the conflict. President Donald Trump's administration is now more than a month into a military campaign aimed at degrading Iran’s military capabilities over the long term. However, this operation carries growing risks of a broader regional war that could draw in further actors and severely disrupt global energy security. At first glance, this may appear to be yet another Middle Eastern conflict in which Washington acts to defend its allies. Yet closer analysis reveals a more complex reality: both Iran and Israel, driven by their respective strategic interests, have played a role in pulling the United States and President Trump into this war.
Despite the administration's initial reluctance to enter another major conflict, and although Donald Trump entered his second term with the ambition of being seen as a “president of peace”, even as a prospective Nobel Peace Prize laureate, developments on the ground have outpaced political intentions. Within a single year, he helped broker the end of several regional conflicts, including the complex war in Gaza in 2025. Nevertheless, the escalating spiral between Tehran and Tel Aviv, compounded by the failure of negotiations in Geneva, significantly narrowed the space for diplomatic manoeuvring.
This dynamic is also captured in a well-known remark by Mao Zedong: “Victory, victory, victory… until defeat is reached.”[3] Its essence lies in the warning that even a succession of triumphs can culminate in strategic failure if not tempered by prudence and a long-term assessment of consequences. History abounds with such examples: Napoleon Bonaparte, following a string of spectacular military feats, met disaster in Russia and ultimate defeat at Waterloo in 1815; Adolf Hitler, after initial successes between 1939 and 1942, reached a critical turning point at Stalingrad, which marked the beginning of his downfall. The United States itself is not immune to this pattern: from Vietnam in 1975, through Iraq in 2010, to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, a series of initial military successes ended in strategic overstretch and political retreat.
Against this backdrop, the breakdown of talks and mounting tensions between Iran and Israel effectively pulled the United States into a direct confrontation. Donald Trump was compelled to act to preserve the credibility of American power and protect national interests in the Persian Gulf – one of the key geostrategic zones of US global engagement.
Although open hostilities erupted on 28 February 2026, their origins can be traced back to June 2025, when a pattern of reciprocal strikes had already taken shape. The escalation was temporarily halted on 24 June, when Donald Trump intervened and ordered a suspension of further attacks – Israeli aircraft, already operating over Iranian territory, were recalled to base. Following this brief lull, tensions intensified again through a series of indirect confrontations and strategic posturing. Efforts to de-escalate through indirect talks in Geneva in early 2026 ultimately failed, paving the way for renewed escalation at the end of February.
By late February, after negotiations collapsed in a deadlock, Israel concluded that diplomacy had run its course and launched a new wave of strikes against Iranian targets, causing the situation to deteriorate rapidly. Iran responded by directly striking US bases in Iraq and Syria, and Washington, faced with threats to its own forces and pressure from its Gulf allies, opted for direct intervention. A coordinated campaign with Israel was launched in March, targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile launch sites, naval assets in the Strait of Hormuz and command structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
This spiralling dynamic serves as a textbook example of the “action–reaction” pattern, in which both regional powers leverage American might to further their own objectives. Iran seeks to demonstrate its ability to inflict unsustainable damage on US interests, while Israel pursues the lasting destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme, viewing it as a matter of its own survival. Amidst this rivalry, the United States is steadily losing the ability to remain a neutral observer. The endgame remains precarious for Washington: a withdrawal would risk a significant loss of credibility, potentially ceding geopolitical ground to Russia and China in the Persian Gulf; alternatively, escalating to salvage its reputation would entail profound political and strategic risks.
Despite the destruction of hundreds of Iranian targets and the elimination of high-ranking commanders, risks to US troops have increased, oil prices have surged, and global trade through the Strait of Hormuz has come under serious threat. Tehran has rejected ceasefire proposals, insisting on reparations and threatening to blockade the Strait. While neither regional actor explicitly forced America’s hand, both have created conditions in which the administration can no longer afford to remain on the sidelines.
Israel’s longstanding objective has been the dismantling of the Iranian regime – initially through internal revolution, and then through military capitulation. As both strategies have fallen short of their goals, the conflict has entered an existential "survive or perish" phase, in which the nuclear threshold represents a tangible threat.
Should Israel continue strikes on critical facilities such as Bushehr or Fordow, the consequences would extend far beyond the region. Even a relatively contained incident, such as a radiation leak, could endanger the entire Gulf area. Further attacks on nuclear infrastructure could remove Tehran’s self-imposed restraint on developing nuclear weapons, potentially turning Iran into another North Korea – a state with nuclear deterrence. At that point, Israel’s strategy would return to square one or, more dangerously, precipitate a catastrophe.[4]
President Donald Trump is attempting a different approach. His 15-point plan, conveyed on 25 March via Pakistan, calls for Iran’s complete abandonment of nuclear weapons and an immediate end to the war. Grounded in the "peace through strength" doctrine, the plan acknowledges the reality that the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be permanently eliminated – only delayed. Rather than pursuing further escalation, the proposal outlines a framework for negotiations with strictly defined conditions and clear pathways for de-escalation.
Panic in the Gulf states is understandable in light of disruptions to oil exports, which account for roughly 95% of their economies, as well as tangible damage to tourism and air transport, which in some countries contribute more than 10% of GDP. The energy insecurity brought by the war is placing additional strain on state budgets. A critical strategic vulnerability lies in desalination infrastructure across the Gulf, which provides roughly 80% of potable water in the region. It must be clear to Israel that a protracted war will neither dismantle the Iranian state nor extinguish its nuclear ambitions.
The current conflict evokes the imagery of the Roman Colosseum, where gladiators determined their opponents’ fate through death – except that in the case of Israel and Iran, the complete defeat of the adversary is unattainable. A potential transition into a nuclear phase would transform the regional conflict into a grave global threat.
What is required now is wisdom: a swift end to military operations, credible negotiations and a focus on long-term security without a nuclear Iran. Rather than pursuing a dangerous escalation, a pragmatic settlement could avert catastrophe and open the path to stability.
The role of the United States’ regional allies in this conflict is multifaceted and strategically complex. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states find themselves in a unique position: they share concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, yet directly bear the repercussions of escalation. Their geographical proximity to Iran leaves them exposed to missile strikes and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime route for global oil trade.
These states are pressing Washington to sustain the military campaign and bring about the definitive collapse of the Iranian regime. They have also signalled readiness to shoulder part of the financial burden of military operations in pursuit of Tehran’s lasting defeat. These dynamics place additional pressure on the US administration, while simultaneously offering President Donald Trump room to calibrate his approach between safeguarding American interests and limiting the risk of a wider regional war.
As a pivotal US ally, Israel has specific security interests at the very heart of the conflict. Tel Aviv regards Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat and maintains that it cannot be neutralised through diplomacy alone. This perception has driven pre-emptive military action, prompting Iranian retaliation, including threats to US forces, and creating a chain of events that has drawn the United States into direct confrontation.
The military campaign against Iran entails substantial economic costs. Oil prices have surged as a direct result of volatility in the Persian Gulf, generating inflationary pressures on both the US and global economies. The financial burden of military operations, including the use of precision-guided munitions and logistical support, amounts to billions of dollars per month.
Nevertheless, diplomacy remains a key instrument for achieving a long-term solution. Experience from the Geneva talks suggests that, while differences between the parties are considerable, they are not insurmountable. The key components of any renewed negotiation process include credible security guarantees, the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme, and the establishment of robust monitoring mechanisms. The Trump administration could draw on its diplomatic capital and previous peace efforts to secure a historic agreement with Iran – one that would not only address the nuclear issue but also pave the way for broader regional dialogue.
At present, a large-scale US ground invasion remains unlikely. While Washington is reinforcing its military presence and carrying out sustained air strikes on Iranian infrastructure and military targets, the lack of sufficient forces and the scale of associated risks represent major constraints. For comparison, during the 1990–1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed approximately 540,000 troops within a coalition numbering close to one million, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved around 150,000 to 170,000 personnel. In Iraq, Shia and Kurdish communities, accounting for around 80% of the population, initially received US forces in a relatively positive manner. In contrast, in Iran the population currently stands firmly behind the authorities, which limits the potential effectiveness of ground operations.[5]
A more plausible scenario would involve limited operations, such as short-duration airborne assaults on strategic locations – including Kharg Island or the Iranian coastline along the Strait of Hormuz. Stretching approximately 167 kilometres and narrowing to just 33 kilometres at its narrowest point, the strait represents a highly sensitive chokepoint through which a substantial share of global oil trade flows. Limited ground operations would likely focus on securing maritime corridors rather than engaging in a prolonged territorial occupation.
In this context, the United Arab Emirates could play a significant role, with their geographical position enabling logistical and operational support for US forces. At the same time, Iran is pursuing a strategy that combines military, economic and political dimensions to frustrate rapid American gains and draw the United States into a protracted asymmetric conflict.
The most probable course of events remains the continuation of intensive air strikes, potentially accompanied by limited ground operations at strategic locations. A prolonged ground invasion remains unlikely, with the conflict continuing within an asymmetric warfare framework, in which neither side can rapidly assert dominance, instead relying on a combination of military and political instruments to pursue its objectives.
History teaches us that an unbroken chain of military "victories" inevitably reaches a tipping point at which strategic advantage is eroded, resources are depleted and legitimacy is compromised. Napoleon Bonaparte fell after conquering half of Europe, Alexander the Great confronted the limits of his armies despite remarkable conquests, and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam, even though it now maintains strong economic relations with the country. The historical lesson remains clear: what appears today as a series of American successes against Iran could, in time, evolve into a protracted conflict that ultimately leads to defeat.
The United States and President Trump now face a historic opportunity to demonstrate genuine leadership: to bring the conflict to an immediate end, return to the negotiating table and provide security guarantees for all parties. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel must not, through pressure or incitement, push the administration into further escalation. While their security concerns may be legitimate, they cannot be pursued at the cost of American lives or global stability.
Peace is not a sign of weakness – it is the highest form of strategic victory. The time has come for all parties to return to that objective before “victories” become irreversible. Having already demonstrated that he can bring wars to an end faster than his predecessors, Donald Trump must once again embrace the role of peacemaker. His aspirations for the Nobel Peace Prize will not be realised through further military strikes, but through the ability to bring an end to a conflict set in motion by others. The region and the wider world expect no less – and they expect it without delay.
Ljubljana/Washington/Brussels, 6 April 2026
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal "European Perspectives." Available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en
[2] Iran–Israel conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-revolutionary-guards
[3] Chinese proverb: "Victory, victory, victory… until defeat is reached". Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12087476-victory-victory-victory-until-defeat-is-reached
[4] Chatham House warns that Israeli strikes could accelerate Iran’s nuclear program by strengthening hardliner arguments for a bomb. Available at: www.chathamhouse.org/2025/06/israels-strikes-might-accelerate-irans-race-towards-nuclear-weapons?utm_source
[5] Pentagon preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, The Washington Post, 29 March 2026. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/28/trump-iran-ground-troops-marines/?utm_source
