Executive Summary
The current geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is fraught with tensions, particularly involving Israel, Iran, and the United States. This report undertakes a comprehensive analysis and simulation of a potential war involving these three nations, considering their military capabilities, alliances, and strategic objectives. The analysis draws upon up-to-date intelligence to assess the strategic, political, and military dimensions of such a conflict, examining the potential involvement of allied nations, regional and global ramifications, and key strategic flashpoints. Furthermore, it integrates historical precedents to provide a deeper understanding of how such a war could unfold. The findings indicate a high likelihood of escalation should a direct conflict erupt, with potentially devastating consequences across the region and significant ramifications for global security and the economy. The report concludes by emphasizing the urgent need for de-escalation and diplomatic solutions to prevent such a catastrophic scenario.
The Evolving Geopolitical Context: Israel, Iran, and the United States
The relationship between Israel, Iran, and the United States is characterized by deep-seated animosity and a complex interplay of strategic interests. The hostility between Iran and Israel is long-standing, evolving from a period of cordial relations during the Cold War to an openly hostile proxy conflict that has significantly impacted the geopolitics of the Middle East since 1985 . This proxy conflict has manifested in various forms, including support for opposing sides in regional conflicts and covert operations. More recently, this dynamic has escalated to direct confrontations, as evidenced by Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024 and Iran’s subsequent unprecedented missile and drone attacks on Israel in April and October 2024 .
The United States has consistently reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to Israel’s security, a relationship underpinned by deep political, military, and economic ties . This commitment was clearly demonstrated by US intervention in intercepting Iranian projectiles aimed at Israel during the recent escalations . This intervention raises complex questions under international law regarding the status of the United States as a neutral state in the conflict between Iran and Israel . The US justifies its actions under the framework of collective self-defense, arguing that the Iranian attacks constitute acts of aggression against Israel, thus entitling Israel to request assistance .
Adding another layer of complexity is the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, which aimed to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and curb its perceived malign influence in the region through stringent economic sanctions and military threats . Key areas of disagreement between the US and Iran include Iran’s development of nuclear technology and its financial and military support for various Islamist groups across the Middle East, such as Hezbollah and Hamas . In response to rising tensions, Iran has showcased its military strength, including the unveiling of massive underground “missile cities” packed with long-range ballistic missiles . Furthermore, the US has recently conducted strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, an Iranian proxy militia, with the immediate aim of halting their attacks on shipping and Israel, signaling a continued effort to counter Iran’s regional influence .
The current geopolitical context reveals a direct and escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, with the United States firmly aligned with Israel. The failure to address fundamental disagreements, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear program, coupled with the active and multifaceted proxy conflict, has created a highly precarious environment ripe for further escalation. The United States, while demonstrating an “ironclad commitment” to Israel’s security through direct military assistance, navigates a complex position, balancing this commitment with a desire to prevent a broader regional conflagration and potentially seeking avenues for renewed nuclear negotiations with Iran .
Military Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis
Understanding the military balance between Israel, Iran, and the United States is crucial for analyzing a potential war scenario. Each nation possesses distinct strengths, weaknesses, and technological advancements that would shape the dynamics of such a conflict.
Israel’s military, known as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), benefits from a unified command structure and a conscript military, drawing recruits from its citizenry . A significant strength lies in its well-developed domestic defense industry, capable of producing a wide array of advanced weaponry and military equipment, including the Merkava tank and sophisticated fighter aircraft . The IDF also possesses and develops cutting-edge military technology, such as the Iron Dome and Arrow missile defense systems, as well as advanced aircraft like the F-35 . Furthermore, Israel maintains close security relationships with several countries, most notably the United States, which provides substantial military financing, engages in joint research and development, and conducts joint military exercises . The IDF’s extensive real-world combat experience, gained through participation in numerous armed conflicts, is another significant advantage . However, the IDF faces potential weaknesses. A full-scale invasion and occupation of Gaza, for instance, could stretch its forces thin, particularly given increasing skepticism among reservists about prolonged conflicts . Past intelligence and operational failures, such as those preceding the October 7, 2023, attack, also highlight vulnerabilities .
Iran’s military capabilities have seen significant development, particularly in the realm of indigenous weapons production . Iran boasts a diverse arsenal of domestically produced weaponry, including various types of missiles (ballistic, cruise, and anti-ship), drones (attack, reconnaissance, and suicide variants), and sophisticated air defense systems like the Bavar-373 . A notable strength is the establishment of major underground military bases, including “missile megacities” and naval facilities, offering a degree of protection for its assets . Iran’s missile technology is particularly advanced, with missiles capable of reaching significant ranges . The military also emphasizes training and readiness, conducting large-scale exercises to prepare for potential threats . Despite these strengths, Iran’s military may face weaknesses in areas such as air defense and electronic warfare capabilities compared to Israel and the United States . Additionally, Iran’s military doctrine relies heavily on its network of proxy forces across the region .
The United States military remains the most formidable globally, characterized by its diverse branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force) and substantial financial resources, with the highest military spending worldwide . While the provided snippets offer limited specifics on technological advancements, the US military undoubtedly possesses cutting-edge capabilities across all domains. A key strength lies in its diverse personnel, including active-duty members, reservists, and a large civilian support staff, enabling it to maintain readiness for a wide range of challenges . The US also benefits from a vast network of global alliances . However, the US military faces challenges, including a shrinking number of active-duty personnel and recruitment struggles, potentially impacting its ability to project global power effectively . Furthermore, the rise of asymmetric threats, such as cyberattacks, information warfare, and the militarization of space, presents new challenges to US military dominance .
Asymmetric warfare capabilities, particularly cyber warfare and the use of unmanned systems, are increasingly important in modern conflicts. Israel possesses cyber warfare capabilities, with the IDF having a dedicated Computer Service Directorate . Iran is also actively developing its cyber capabilities and employs surveillance technology for internal control . The United States is heavily invested in both offensive and defensive cyber operations, conducting large-scale exercises like Cyber Guard to enhance its capabilities and address threats to critical infrastructure . The increasing prevalence and sophistication of asymmetric threats, including the proliferation of drones, pose a significant challenge to the traditional military supremacy of even the most powerful nations .
| Nation | Strengths | Weaknesses | Key Technologies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Israel | Unified command, conscription, strong domestic defense industry, battle-tested experience, close US ties, advanced military technology (Iron Dome, Arrow, F-35) | Potential strain on reserves, past intelligence/operational failures | Iron Dome, Arrow missile defense systems, F-35 fighter aircraft, Merkava tank, cyber warfare capabilities |
| Iran | Indigenous weapon production (missiles, drones, air defense, naval), underground facilities, long-range missile technology, emphasis on training and readiness | Potential inferiority in air defense and electronic warfare, heavy reliance on proxy networks | Ballistic missiles (Qadr, Emad), cruise missiles, drones (Shahed), Bavar-373 air defense system |
| United States | Diverse military branches, highest military spending, technological advancements, demographic diversity, strong global alliances | Potential challenges in global power projection (troop shrinkage), emerging asymmetric threats (cyber, space) | Advanced aircraft, naval power, missile technology, cyber warfare capabilities, space-based assets |
Export to Sheets
The Tangled Web of Alliances and Partnerships
The geopolitical landscape of a potential war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States is further complicated by the intricate network of alliances and partnerships each nation maintains. These alignments would significantly influence the scope and dynamics of any conflict.
Israel’s most critical alliance is with the United States, a relationship characterized by substantial military financing, extensive intelligence sharing, and frequent joint military exercises . Beyond this, Israel has been fostering a security coalition with several Arab countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE . This emerging Arab-Israeli alliance is primarily driven by shared concerns regarding Iran’s political and military ambitions in the region . Israel also maintains a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, which spans the Middle East and the Caucasus . Furthermore, Israel is a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue forum, indicating a level of engagement with the Western alliance .
Iran, on the other hand, relies on a network of non-state actors across the Middle East, collectively known as the “Axis of Resistance.” This network includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian Territories, the Houthi movement in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria . Iran has particularly close ties with Lebanon and Hezbollah, providing significant support . Globally, Iran has been strengthening its strategic partnership with China, formalized through a 25-year comprehensive agreement encompassing various sectors, including energy, infrastructure, technology, and security . Iran’s relationship with Russia has also been growing, marked by increasing military cooperation . Additionally, Iran is a member of significant international organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), reflecting its efforts to diversify its international relationships .
The United States maintains a broad network of strategic partnerships in the Middle East and beyond. Key allies in the region include Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) . The US has been actively promoting the development of the Arab-Israeli alliance as a means to enhance regional security and counter Iran . Globally, the United States is a founding member and a dominant force within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance committed to the security of its members . While the US has diplomatic relations with nearly every country in the Middle East, with the notable exceptions of Iran and Syria, the strength and nature of these relationships vary .
| Nation | Regional Allies/Partners | Global Allies/Partners | Key Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Israel | Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Azerbaijan | United States, NATO (Mediterranean Dialogue member) | Countering Iran, regional security, strategic depth |
| Iran | Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis (Yemen), Shia militias (Iraq, Syria), Syria (limited) | China, Russia, BRICS, SCO | Regional hegemony, countering US and Israeli influence, supporting “Axis of Resistance” |
| United States | Israel, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, other GCC members | NATO | Regional stability, counter-proliferation, maintaining security of allies, countering Iran and other rivals, global power projection |
Export to Sheets
National Security Interests and Strategic Objectives
The national security interests and strategic objectives of Israel, Iran, and the United States are central to understanding the potential for conflict and its likely trajectory.
For Israel, the paramount national security interest is the security and survival of the Jewish state and its citizens . This includes countering immediate threats posed by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the long-term challenge from Iran, particularly its nuclear ambitions . Strategically, Israel aims to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and seeks to achieve greater stability and security through the normalization of relations with Arab states, as seen in the Abraham Accords . Maintaining its qualitative military edge in the region is also a crucial objective . In the long term, Israel may seek deeper integration into a US-backed regional security architecture to enhance its strategic position .
Iran’s national security interests are closely linked to its ambition for regional hegemony and the survival of its Islamic Republic regime . Its strategic objectives include challenging the influence of the United States and Israel in the Middle East, supporting its network of proxies (“Axis of Resistance”) to further its regional goals , and developing its missile program as a key tool for deterrence and power projection . A core strategic aim is the expulsion of the United States military presence from the region .
The United States’ national security interests in the Middle East are multifaceted and include preventing the intensification of regional conflicts and blocking Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons . Ensuring the stability of energy markets and the freedom of navigation, particularly through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, is also a high priority . The US seeks to limit the growing influence of China and Russia in this critical region and remains committed to the security of its key ally, Israel . Countering terrorism and extremist groups remains a significant US objective , and there is a broader strategic interest in promoting a more integrated and comprehensive approach to US policy in the Middle East .
Simulating a Potential War: Scenarios and Escalation Dynamics
A potential war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States could be triggered by a number of events. Continued Israeli strikes against Iranian assets or personnel, whether in Syria or directly within Iran, could provoke a significant Iranian response. Conversely, a major Iranian attack on Israeli territory or on critical US interests in the region could also serve as a trigger. An escalation of the ongoing proxy conflict, particularly involving Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza, beyond current levels could also ignite a wider war. An Iranian attempt to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil supply, would almost certainly draw a forceful response, likely involving the United States. Finally, an Israeli preemptive strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, a scenario often discussed, represents a high-risk trigger with the potential for immediate and widespread conflict.
The initial phase of a war would likely involve intense exchanges of missiles and drones between Israel and Iran. Given the US commitment to Israel’s security, US forces would likely play a significant role in bolstering Israel’s air defense capabilities, as demonstrated in past Iranian attacks . Israel’s response could be multifaceted, potentially including strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, known missile sites, suspected nuclear facilities, and key leadership targets. Israel might also undertake ground incursions into areas like Gaza or Lebanon, depending on the triggering event and the perceived threat . Iran’s reaction would likely involve further missile and drone attacks on Israel, potentially with increased intensity and precision. Iran might also target US military bases located throughout the Middle East and could activate its extensive network of proxy forces. Hezbollah in Lebanon could launch a massive barrage of rockets and missiles against Israel , while the Houthis in Yemen might escalate attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and potentially launch projectiles towards Israel . Shia militias in Iraq could also be activated to target US forces and possibly Israel . Limited support from Syria, a long-time ally of Iran, might also materialize, though the extent would depend on Syria’s own weakened state . The United States would likely respond with direct military intervention to defend Israel and protect its own strategic interests in the region. This could involve air strikes against Iranian targets, naval deployments to counter threats in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and potentially the deployment of ground forces depending on the scale and nature of the conflict.
The involvement of allied and proxy forces would be a defining characteristic of this war. Israel would likely receive significant military and intelligence support from the United States. Limited intelligence sharing and potentially logistical assistance from some Arab states, particularly Jordan, which has intercepted Iranian projectiles in the past, might also occur . Iran would rely heavily on its “Axis of Resistance.” Hezbollah, with its substantial missile arsenal, poses a significant threat to northern Israel . The Houthis, controlling strategic maritime chokepoints, could disrupt global shipping and potentially strike Israel with longer-range missiles and drones . Iraqi Shia militias, with ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), could target US military personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria .
Several factors could lead to further escalation of the conflict. The use of non-conventional weapons by any party would represent a significant and dangerous escalation. Attacks targeting civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, water facilities, or major transportation hubs, could also broaden the scope and intensity of the war. A direct military confrontation between US and Iranian forces, beyond the current indirect engagements through proxies, would be a major escalatory step. The involvement of other regional powers, such as Turkey or Egypt, could also expand the conflict geographically and in terms of the actors involved. Conversely, several factors could contribute to de-escalation. Diplomatic intervention by international actors, including the United Nations and major global powers, could create pressure for a ceasefire and negotiations. Exhaustion of military capabilities on any side could also lead to a cessation of hostilities. Internal political or economic pressures within Israel, Iran, or the United States might also push for de-escalation. Finally, successful negotiation of a ceasefire agreement, potentially brokered by external parties, remains the most direct path to ending the conflict. The intricate web of alliances, deep-seated animosities, and the involvement of numerous non-state actors create a scenario with a high potential for escalation. A miscalculation or a significant attack could rapidly spiral the conflict beyond the control of any single actor.
Regional Ramifications: Impact on Neighboring Nations
A war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States would have profound and destabilizing effects on the Middle East region, impacting neighboring nations in various ways.
Lebanon would likely become a major theater of conflict due to the strong presence of Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy with a substantial military capability and a history of conflict with Israel . The country could face widespread destruction from Israeli military operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure and fighters, potentially leading to a new wave of displacement and a significant refugee crisis . The already weak Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would likely struggle to maintain control in the face of intense conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, further undermining the stability of the Lebanese state .
Syria, already ravaged by years of civil war, would likely see an intensification of Israeli strikes against Iranian targets and infrastructure within its territory . The conflict could further destabilize the country, potentially leading to new power vacuums and exacerbating existing internal tensions. Syria would likely remain a key arena for the ongoing proxy struggle between Israel and Iran.
Iraq’s fragile political landscape could be significantly strained by a broader regional war . The presence of powerful pro-Iranian militias, such as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), could lead to internal divisions and potentially draw Iraq into the conflict through attacks on US forces or Israeli interests from Iraqi territory . Furthermore, Iraq’s economy, heavily reliant on oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, would be highly vulnerable to disruptions in maritime traffic caused by the conflict .
Yemen, already embroiled in a protracted civil war, would likely see its conflict further intertwined with a wider regional confrontation . The Houthi rebels, strongly backed by Iran, could escalate their attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, a vital global trade route, and might also attempt to target Israel with missiles and drones . The US would likely continue its military actions against Houthi targets in response to these threats .
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States would be highly concerned about the outbreak of a regional war involving Iran and Israel . These nations, while some have established nascent ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords, would be particularly vulnerable to attacks on their critical energy infrastructure, the backbone of their economies . Despite their concerns about Iran’s regional ambitions, the Gulf States would likely attempt to maintain a neutral stance in a direct conflict between Israel and Iran, focusing on diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions while bracing for potential economic and security repercussions .
Global Repercussions: Economic, Political, and Security Implications
A war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States would extend far beyond the immediate region, triggering significant global repercussions across economic, political, and security domains.
The most immediate global impact would likely be felt in energy markets. The Middle East is a critical hub for global oil and gas production, and a major conflict involving key players like Iran could lead to significant disruptions in supply, causing oil prices to spike dramatically . The Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply flows, is particularly vulnerable to closure or disruption in the event of a major conflict with Iran . Such disruptions would not only impact oil prices but also lead to increased shipping costs and potential trade disruptions globally . The surge in energy prices and shipping costs would likely fuel global inflation, impacting economies worldwide .
Beyond the energy sector, the broader global economy could face significant challenges. Increased geopolitical uncertainty stemming from a major Middle East conflict could lead to reduced global trade and financial flows, negatively impacting investment and potentially slowing down global GDP growth .
A particularly concerning global security implication is the increased risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East . If Iran feels existentially threatened by a major conflict, especially one involving strikes on its nuclear facilities, it might accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons as a deterrent . This could, in turn, prompt other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, to consider developing their own nuclear capabilities, leading to a dangerous arms race and further destabilizing an already volatile region .
The conflict would also have significant ramifications for global security dynamics and the role of major powers . The involvement of the United States would likely draw in other global actors, potentially leading to increased involvement of Russia and China, which have their own strategic interests in the Middle East and may support Iran . This could further complicate US foreign policy objectives and strain international alliances, potentially leading to divisions within organizations like NATO . The United Nations Security Council would likely face significant challenges in effectively addressing the conflict due to the differing geopolitical interests of its permanent members .
Lessons from the Past: Historical Parallels and Escalatory Factors
Drawing lessons from historical conflicts in the Middle East involving similar actors or dynamics can provide valuable insights into how a potential war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States might unfold.
The history of Arab-Israeli wars offers a stark reminder of the recurring cycles of conflict and the persistent challenges in achieving lasting peace in the region . These conflicts, often stemming from unresolved issues related to land, security, and self-determination, have demonstrated a dangerous pattern of escalation, where localized tensions can rapidly spiral into larger regional wars . The shifting nature of the conflict, evolving from a primarily Arab-Israeli confrontation to a more localized Israeli-Palestinian struggle, highlights the complexities and the enduring nature of the underlying issues .
The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) provides a historical parallel of a protracted and costly regional struggle involving significant regional powers . This war, fueled by ideological differences and a struggle for regional dominance, involved extensive foreign involvement on both sides and resulted in immense human and economic costs. The potential for a future Israel-Iran conflict to become similarly protracted, marked by periods of intense fighting and stalemate, is a sobering possibility .
Middle East conflicts often follow predictable patterns of escalation, characterized by cycles of provocation, retaliation, and military mobilization . External actors, particularly global powers like the United States, have historically played a significant role in influencing the decisions and actions of regional players, sometimes contributing to escalation and at other times attempting de-escalation . Understanding these patterns is crucial for identifying potential triggers and attempting to disrupt these cycles to prevent wider conflicts . The superimposition of global and regional rivalries onto local conflicts, as seen during the Cold War, has historically served to inhibit de-escalation efforts, highlighting the complex interplay of different levels of conflict .
| Conflict | Key Dates | Main Actors | Key Outcomes/Lessons | Potential Parallels to Israel-Iran Conflict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arab-Israeli Wars (multiple) | 1948-present | Israel vs. various Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc.) and Palestinian groups | Recurring cycles of conflict, unresolved issues over land and security, shifting nature of conflict | Potential for protracted conflict with shifting dynamics, difficulty in achieving lasting peace without addressing root causes |
| Iran-Iraq War | 1980-1988 | Iran vs. Iraq | Protracted and costly regional struggle, significant human and economic consequences, foreign involvement | Potential for a long and costly regional war, involvement of external powers, ideological underpinnings |
Export to Sheets
Conclusion: Navigating a Perilous Landscape
The analysis presented in this report underscores the significant risk of a major conflict involving Israel, Iran, and the United States. The current geopolitical landscape is characterized by a volatile mix of long-standing hostilities, direct confrontations, and an intricate web of alliances. The military capabilities of each nation, while possessing unique strengths, also reveal vulnerabilities that could be exploited in a conflict. The strategic objectives and national security interests of these actors are often diametrically opposed, creating a fertile ground for potential escalation. The involvement of numerous allied and proxy forces further complicates the scenario, increasing the likelihood of a localized conflict spiraling into a broader regional war. The potential regional ramifications for neighboring countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Gulf States are severe, ranging from widespread destruction and refugee crises to economic instability. Globally, such a conflict could trigger energy price shocks, disrupt international trade, and increase the risk of nuclear proliferation, with major powers potentially drawn into the fray, reshaping global security dynamics. Lessons from past conflicts in the Middle East, such as the Arab-Israeli Wars and the Iran-Iraq War, highlight the deeply entrenched nature of regional conflicts and the challenges in achieving lasting peace. The recurring patterns of escalation underscore the urgent need to identify and disrupt these cycles to prevent a catastrophic war.
Recommendations for Mitigating Conflict and Fostering Stability
Given the perilous landscape and the potentially devastating consequences of a war involving Israel, Iran, and the United States, a concerted effort towards de-escalation and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions is paramount. Renewed diplomatic efforts, potentially involving multilateral frameworks, should be prioritized to address Iran’s nuclear program and alleviate the security concerns of all parties involved. Direct dialogue and the establishment of confidence-building measures between Israel and Iran are essential to reduce the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation. Addressing the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a critical step towards broader regional stability, as this issue often serves as a flashpoint and a driver of wider tensions. International cooperation is crucial to prevent further nuclear proliferation in the region, potentially through strengthened non-proliferation treaties and active diplomatic engagement. Finally, supporting regional initiatives aimed at de-escalation and conflict resolution, potentially through the involvement of neutral mediators and regional powers, could help to foster a more stable and secure Middle East. A multifaceted approach that combines sustained diplomacy, addresses core grievances, and fosters regional cooperation offers the most viable path to prevent a catastrophic war and promote long-term stability in this strategically vital region.
Works Cited
- Iran–Israel relations – Wikipedia
- United States foreign policy in the Middle East – Wikipedia
- Iran–Israel proxy conflict – Wikipedia
- Dilemmas of Defense: The U.S. Role in the Iran-Israel Conflict – Lieber Institute
- 2024 Iran–Israel conflict – Wikipedia
- Israel: Major Issues and U.S. Relations – Congress.gov
- Trump’s Middle East strategy is all about striking an Iran deal. Gaza could get in the way – Atlantic Council
- India’s Tightrope Walk: Navigating U.S.-Israel-Iran Tensions – New Lines Institute
- Iran Unveils Massive Underground “Missile City” Amid Tensions With Israel, US – YouTube
- Iran Unveils Secret Underground Missile City Amid Rising Tensions With US & Israel – YouTube
- Department Press Briefing – March 21, 2025 – United States Department of State
- Iran’s Geopolitical Footprint: Regional Power or Global Contender – Modern Diplomacy
- The Iran-U.S./Israel Trigger List | Crisis Group
- Israel Defense Forces – Wikipedia
- Egypt vs. Israel military power: A comparison after Tel Aviv concern – Egypt Independent
