By the end of its first week, the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran was expected to become clearer in its motivations, main developments and the objectives pursued by those leading it. Yet despite the constant sound of aircraft and missiles over the Middle East and scenes of widespread destruction, the war has instead become more ambiguous. Statements by senior officials in Washington have offered differing explanations regarding the reasons for the war, its duration and its ultimate objectives.
In the early days of the conflict, US President Donald Trump gave several different estimates of how long the war might last. At one point, he suggested it would continue for only a few days or perhaps a week; at another, he indicated that it could extend four to five weeks; and on another occasion, he stated that the United States would continue fighting until its objectives were achieved. The administration initially justified the war by arguing that Iran represented a threat to US security and that Iranian negotiators had manipulated the course of negotiations during several rounds of talks concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio later stated that the United States had entered the war alongside Israel partly out of concern that Iranian retaliation against Israeli strikes could target American interests. Trump subsequently insisted that the decision to go to war had been entirely American and that the United States had drawn Israel into the conflict rather than the reverse.
The war nevertheless reflects an unprecedented level of cooperation between the United States and Israel. Although Washington had provided military and intelligence support to Israel in earlier wars—including the conflicts of 1967 and 1973—and had conducted limited strikes during the brief Israeli campaign against Iran in June 2025, the current conflict represents the first time that the two countries have fought together in full operational partnership. Evidence suggests that the campaign had been jointly planned for months through extensive coordination between American and Israeli military leadership.
Despite this close cooperation, the two allies do not appear to share identical views regarding the ultimate objectives of the war. According to statements by US officials, the main goals are to destroy Iran’s missile systems and launch infrastructure, neutralise its naval capabilities, prevent the development of a military nuclear programme, and weaken Iran’s ability to support allied armed groups in the region. US officials have also stated that establishing a democratic government in Iran is not among the war’s objectives. Israel, however, has adopted a more expansive vision. Israeli leaders have openly called for the removal of the Iranian regime. According to regional sources, Israeli officials had indicated before the outbreak of hostilities that Iran would face a comprehensive war that would not end before either the overthrow of the Islamic Republic or the fragmentation of the Iranian state.
Meanwhile, the war has expanded rapidly beyond Iran itself. Iranian leaders appear to have adopted a strategy that treats the conflict as a struggle for national survival and seeks to raise the costs of war for the United States, Israel and the wider international system. Iranian missiles and drones have targeted not only Israel but also several neighbouring states hosting US forces, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Although Iran maintains that these attacks target only American military sites, some strikes have affected airports, energy facilities, diplomatic missions and other infrastructure across the region.
Other arenas of escalation have also emerged. Hezbollah opened hostilities along the Lebanese–Israeli border, launching attacks on northern Israel and engaging Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. Israel responded with extensive bombardment of Shiite areas in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs and ordered evacuations from large parts of these districts. In Iraq, pro-Iranian armed groups mobilised in support of Tehran, while discussions have emerged regarding possible attempts by the United States and Israel to engage Iranian Kurdish armed groups based in northern Iraq.
The economic consequences of the war have also become increasingly evident. Iran has effectively disrupted navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for global energy supplies through which a significant share of the world’s oil and gas normally passes. Attacks on regional energy infrastructure—including oil fields, export terminals, pipelines and gas facilities—have forced interruptions in production across parts of the Gulf. Energy markets have reacted sharply, with natural gas prices in Europe rising significantly and oil prices increasing amid fears of prolonged disruption. Officials in the region warn that continued escalation could lead to a major global economic crisis.
Despite the scale of US and Israeli airstrikes—reportedly striking thousands of targets including military bases, command facilities, infrastructure and energy installations—the Iranian state does not appear close to collapse. Reports indicate that daily life in major cities such as Tehran continues within the limits imposed by wartime conditions and that the institutions of the state remain present.
Although the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strike was expected by some observers to destabilise the regime, this has not occurred. The Iranian political system is characterised by a distribution of power among multiple centres of authority, even though the Supreme Leader occupies a central position. Following the assassination, Iran moved toward the selection of a new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Once the leadership structure is fully consolidated, decision-making within the system may become more coherent. While the new leader is associated with the conservative current within the regime and is expected to maintain the emphasis on national sovereignty and independence that characterised the previous leadership, Iran is not a suicidal state.
For this reason, the future course of the war remains uncertain. Under certain circumstances, the United States could declare that the war has achieved its objectives by weakening Iran’s military capabilities and then seek to end the conflict. At the same time, continued escalation remains possible if the war persists without clear signs of Iranian retreat or willingness to negotiate on new terms.
After only one week, therefore, the defining feature of the war is not clarity but growing complexity. The conflict has expanded across multiple regional arenas and begun to affect the global economy. In such conditions, firm predictions about its eventual outcome remain difficult.
*This is a summary of a policy brief originally written in Arabic available here.