“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

So proclaimed President Donald Trump during his inaugural address, a mere five months ago, portraying himself as a noble combination of strongman and peacemaker. The administration’s decision to attack Iran on June 21 ostensibly highlights the first two options in that policy triad, while ignoring the third. Trump’s military gambit in the Persian Gulf, however, raises the more salient question, “What comes next?”

In a perfect scenario for Washington, the initial American strikes on Iran, carried out essentially on a subcontractor basis in a broader Israeli battle with Tehran, will stop Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks. The weakened theocratic regime will soon collapse, leading to the establishment of a more-progressive, benign government in the Persian lands.

Israel, with a little help from the Pentagon, will have rid the Middle East of a persistent threat, paving the way for a broad-based peace agreement to end the perpetual violence in this troubled region. This might happen, but likely will not.

Bearing in mind that all military operations of this kind have unforeseen consequences, it is instructive to consider other potential storylines that could play out instead of the golden one described above. Governments under attack rarely collapse in short order, as it is human nature to “rally around the flag” during periods of military conflict. Thus, it is implausible that the mullahs in Tehran will immediately depart the scene. Furthermore, they undoubtedly have retaliatory plans prepared, given that the threat of attack from their enemies — Israel and the United States — has been a consistent reality for the past quarter-century.

How might the Iranian regime exact its revenge? We have already seen their missile capabilities with recent long-range strikes against Israel so one can assume that American military facilities across the Middle East represent prospective targets. Economic sabotage operations, for instance closing the Strait of Hormuz, are also credibly on the table. The bombardment may trigger terrorist attacks as well, both regime-sponsored and organic, against U.S. interests across the globe. 

Turning to the U.S. homeland, cyber attacks remain a persistent threat. Iran has historically invested heavily in this field and is reported to be quite capable. Disrupting the water supply of a major American city, the power grid or a telecommunications provider are not out of the question. This type of retaliation would be particularly effective as the United States is much more adept at dispensing hardship than suffering it.

While we understandably marvel at the reach and capabilities of our military, we appear collectively oblivious to the potential for painful repercussions at home arising from our actions abroad. Should Iran carry out a substantive attack on the homefront, whether via terrorism or cyber means, the wisdom of Trump’s military adventure would be seriously questioned.

What if the recent strikes did not totally destroy the Iranian nuclear program, as Washington claims? The regime would certainly “sprint for the bomb” to defend itself against further aggression. Tehran might look to other rogue nuclear states (North Korea) to help it across the weaponization finish line. Would Washington then send in ground troops to prevent this doomsday scenario? 

The military action can likewise be expected to further unsettle the wider geopolitical arena, with mid-level powers becoming more susceptible to the lure of nuclear weapons to guarantee their security. It is not lost on would-be regional hegemons that Russia is attacking Ukraine (no nukes) while Israel and the United States are pounding Iran (no nukes) but America and South Korea continue to tread very lightly with respect to North Korea (nukes). Hence, the attacks on Iran could ironically precipitate a dangerous period of nuclear proliferation. 

Should any of these less-than-ideal scenarios come to fruition, Washington could once again be dragged into the toxic miasma of Middle Eastern ethnoreligious barbarity, distracting focus from great power threats in Europe and Asia. Moscow and Beijing, while condemning American aggression against Iran, will eagerly use the precedent to pursue their respective territorial aggrandizements, in the process creating cascading international challenges for the White House. 

Moreover, domestically for Trump, renewed entanglement in the Persian Gulf region would heighten fissures in the president’s base between the isolationist “America Firsters” and the more-interventionist wing of the MAGA faithful. While not a concern for the president in the short term, blowback from the strikes which pull Washington back into the region’s violent vortex could spell trouble for Trump 2.0 as the 2026 midterm elections approach. 

How the Trump administration manages this crisis will assuredly affect much more than just its relations with Tehran. Only time will tell whether the consequences of the attack on Iran will herald a new era of peace and stability or yet more American involvement in the seemingly intractable morass of bloodshed in the Middle East.

Robert Beck of Peterborough is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. After serving for 30 years in U.S embassies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, he now teaches foreign policy classes at lifelong learning programs at both Keene State College and Rivier University.