Analysts are weighing how this deadly conflict, initiated by the United States and Israel, might eventually conclude. Below are several potential endgames for the regional crisis, as outlined by U.S. and Israeli officials and examined by regional observers.
REGIME CHANGE?
Officials from the United States and Israel have hinted that the strike on Iran aims to force a change in the Iranian political system.
“We have a systematic plan to eradicate the Iranian regime and achieve many other objectives,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised address last week.
Although the United States and Israel killed then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the first round of attacks on Tehran, the Iranian political system did not undergo a fundamental shake-up. Iran quickly elected Mojtaba Khamenei, who holds a more staunchly anti-U.S. and anti-Israel stance, as the new supreme leader.
Following Mojtaba Khamenei’s election, the Iranian armed forces and pro-Tehran groups in the region quickly pledged their support, allowing Iran’s political system to continue operating largely intact and without major disruption.
Ali Al-Harthi, a Saudi political writer and analyst, said that while the United States and Israel may have succeeded in targeting certain Iranian military capabilities, achieving broader objectives, such as forcing a fundamental change in the behavior of the Iranian system or significantly weakening it, appears far more difficult.
“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” OF IRAN?
U.S. President Donald Trump has said that the United States demands an unconditional surrender of Iran.
“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s),” he said on social media on March 6.
Regarding the U.S. demand, Iran has made no concessions. Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said on March 11 that it will continue striking Israel and U.S. bases across the Middle East until it perceives the threat of war against Iran has ended.
“We only think of the enemy’s complete surrender,” the IRGC said in a statement on its official outlet Sepah News.
As the conflict drags on, Iran’s ongoing counterattacks have also inflicted heavy damage on both Israel and multiple U.S. military bases across the Middle East, signaling Tehran’s resolute stance.
“There are mistakes and poor strategy by the United States, because it clearly did not realize that Iran is a strategic knot present in this region and that this regime cannot be overthrown easily,” said Mokhtar Ghobashy, secretary-general of the Cairo-based El-Faraby Center for Political Studies
ATTRITIONAL WAR?
Both Israel and Iran have signaled that they are prepared to keep the war going.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz suggested that the timeline for ending the war is open-ended. “The operation will continue without any time limit, as long as required, until we accomplish all objectives and achieve victory in the campaign,” he said, according to The Times of Israel.
For his part, Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on March 10 that the country is well-prepared to continue missile attacks against Israel and U.S. bases in the West Asia region for as long as needed.
Despite Iran and Israel showing readiness for a drawn-out war, analysts believe that the U.S. factor will heavily influence the conflict’s long-term viability.
Perhaps to Israel’s disappointment, the United States does not appear willing to engage in a prolonged war of attrition with Iran.
In an interview with U.S. online media outlet Axios, Trump said the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran will end “soon,” because there is “practically nothing left to target.”
Some observers argue that Washington’s rush to pull back is less about achieving its objectives and more about the heavy toll the war has taken, including soaring oil prices and damage to its military assets in the region.
“I believe that the United States has entered a dilemma,” Ghobashy said. “It may be more severe than Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, or other places the United States has entered, given the American losses.”
CEASEFIRE WITHOUT CLEAR VICTOR?
Some analysts argue that one likely outcome of the regional war is not a decisive military victory by either side but a ceasefire or gradual de-escalation driven by the rising costs of a prolonged conflict.
Abu Bakr al-Deeb, a scholar at the Arab Center for Research and Studies in Cairo, said an eventual halt in the fighting could be driven less by political compromise than by mounting economic pressure, which neither side can bear.
He noted that sustained disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and sharp increases in oil prices could prompt major powers to push both sides toward de-escalation. Such a scenario could result in what he described as a “fragile stalemate,” shifting the region from open warfare to a tense period of containment.
