Foreign Policy: What are possible endgames for Israel-Iran conflict?

The war between Israel and Iran is still in its early stages, but as Foreign Policy outlines in its analysis, it’s not too early to examine how it might end—or dangerously expand. Israel has pledged to continue its military strikes for “as many days as it takes” to degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and cripple its military. Iran, having already retaliated with drone and missile attacks, has limited but unpredictable options. From face-saving retreats to full-blown regional war, several endgames are emerging.

One possible outcome is an Iranian climbdown disguised as victory. Iran may stage a few highly visible retaliatory strikes to project strength, then quietly accept a cease-fire pushed by the US and other powers. This would mirror Hezbollah’s response to Israel’s 2024 offensive: bruised, diminished, and unwilling to escalate further. Iran’s proxies are weakened, its missile strikes largely ineffective, and Israeli intelligence has deeply penetrated its leadership. Replacement commanders are already being targeted, casting doubt on Tehran’s ability to mount a coordinated response. In this case, Iran may choose to regroup rather than continue taking losses.

A second scenario sees Iran holding out longer. It may land symbolic hits—through missiles, terrorism, or cyberattacks—while international pressure builds on Israel to de-escalate. European powers have already urged restraint. While Israel can dismiss European criticism, it is more sensitive to pressure from US President Donald Trump. Should Trump push for a halt, Israel might pause operations, calculating that it has achieved enough damage for now.

This could revive diplomatic efforts. The United States under Trump has pushed for a negotiated deal over Iran’s nuclear program, despite the resemblance to the 2015 deal he once rejected. rump has already called for a return to negotiations after the strikes. Iran might be tempted—crippled economically and with little left to lose—but would risk appearing weak under fire. Concessions under bombardment would be politically costly, especially with Trump likely to frame them as a victory for his diplomacy.

More ominous is the potential for regional escalation. Iran previously warned it could target US bases in the region, seeing Washington as complicit despite US denials of involvement. If Iran strikes American assets, or if the US joins the fight—possibly to “finish the job” Israel started—the war could expand rapidly. Proxy attacks on Israel and US positions in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon would likely intensify. Even Arab states like Jordan, which recently intercepted Iranian missiles, could be pulled in further.

Lastly, the war might not end at all. Once the airstrikes slow, a simmering, indefinite conflict could replace full-scale war. Sporadic Israeli assassinations, sabotage, and Iranian proxy attacks may define this “forever war.” Under such conditions, Iran might also push its nuclear ambitions underground, claiming self-defense while evading inspections.

As Foreign Policy concludes, combinations of these outcomes are possible. A temporary cease-fire might coexist with strikes, while diplomacy and retaliation continue in parallel. However it unfolds, the Israel-Iran conflict is shaping up to be not a single battle—but a long, unpredictable struggle.

By Sabina Mammadli