ISTANBUL
The escalating US-Israeli military confrontation with Iran risks turning into a prolonged conflict with global economic and security consequences, according to an expert.
Ali Vaez, Iran project director and senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, warned that military pressure on Iran is unlikely to produce a sustainable outcome, arguing that diplomatic failures and growing mistrust have pushed Washington toward a conflict with no clear exit.
Vaez spoke to Anadolu on Saturday on the sidelines of the STRATCOM Summit 2026 in Istanbul.
Trump’s approach and failed diplomacy
Vaez said US President Donald Trump’s negotiating strategy contributed to the collapse of diplomacy with Tehran, noting that pressure-first tactics made compromise unlikely.
“President Trump always surrounded himself by people who were in charge of the negotiations, who did not share his interest in any kind of serious agreement...
“(They) conveyed to him this view that Iran would be able to capitulate to him under pressure so he doesn't need to engage in any kind of give and take,” Vaez said.
He added that the assumption that Iran would accept a one-sided deal was unrealistic and that the approach effectively doomed negotiations in both of Trump’s terms.
Vaez also argued that Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement -- the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which is widely associated with former President Barack Obama -- eroded trust and complicated future diplomacy, including efforts under then-President Joe Biden in 2021–2022 to revive negotiations.
“The military option is not a solution,” Vaez said, noting how even after Trump’s claims last year that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” fighting resumed months later.
Two risky options: Exit or escalation
Vaez said Trump now faces two difficult paths: de-escalation or further military expansion.
Exiting the conflict would require acknowledging that Iran’s government remains intact, its enriched uranium stockpile persists, and Tehran retains influence over key strategic routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Escalation, however, risks deeper entanglement, according to him.
“One (option) is sending ground troops and occupying some of the islands of Iran in the Persian Gulf... But that is really the definition of mission creep and being bogged down in something like Vietnam,” he said.
The alternative, targeting Iranian energy infrastructure, could trigger regional retaliation.
“If he does that, the Iranians would torch the energy infrastructure of the rest of the region... oil prices would go above $250 a barrel, and we would have a global economic meltdown,” Vaez warned.
Military action cannot eliminate Iran’s capabilities
Vaez stressed that Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be destroyed through military strikes.
“Iran has mastered the art of nuclear enrichment. It's a science and knowledge that cannot be bombed out of the mindset of the Iranian scientists... the horse has already left the barn.”
He added that while strikes may temporarily degrade capabilities, they could strengthen Iran’s motivation to pursue nuclear weapons.
Vaez made a similar assessment of Iran’s missile program, noting that despite claims that most launchers had been destroyed, Iran continued firing missiles and drones weeks into the conflict.
“Any kind of optimism about a permanent solution through a military option is... wrong-headed,” he stressed.
Gulf states caught between Washington and Tehran
Vaez described Gulf countries as being trapped between reliance on US security guarantees and unavoidable geographic proximity to Iran.
“By the force of geography, they're Iran's neighbors. They can't move away... they have to eventually (learn to) live right next door to Iran and find a modus vivendi.”
At the same time, he said Gulf states cannot easily replace US defense infrastructure with alternatives such as China or Russia, leaving them at a strategic impasse.
No clear winner
Vaez argued that neither side has achieved a decisive victory.
The US and Israel have degraded Iran’s capabilities but not destroyed them, while Iran has survived and retained retaliatory capacity but also failed to deliver a decisive blow.
“The longer this war goes on, the higher the costs and the risks for both sides and the rest of the world... As unattractive as a ceasefire might look... it is the best option available.”
Israel’s objectives and war aims
Vaez said Israel’s strategic objective may extend beyond regime change.
“What Israel wants is state failure... that Iran becomes another failed state which would not be able to project power beyond its borders and challenge Israel's dominance of the region.”
He pointed to strikes on universities and civilian infrastructure as evidence of broader goals aimed at weakening Iran internally.
Nuclear non-proliferation at risk
Vaez warned the conflict could undermine the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“A nuclear weapon state, the United States... and another nuclear weapon state... Israel, have bombed a country that was a member of the NPT and did not have nuclear weapons.”
If Iran ultimately pursues nuclear weapons, he said, it would become the world’s 10th nuclear-armed state, weakening the global non-proliferation regime.
Vaez stressed that Israel "hyped (nuclear) threat, which was not imminent, and “use(d) for other reasons to eliminate a regional adversary to Israel.”
When asked whether Israel influenced Washington’s decision, Vaez said the move ultimately rested with the US president but was shaped by Israeli considerations.
“Undoubtedly this was a decision that President Trump made himself, but it was a decision that was made in a context that was hugely shaped by Israel,” he said.
Global ripple effects
Vaez said the war could influence other countries, including North Korea, to avoid nuclear negotiations.
“Iran was attacked because it didn't have nuclear weapons...(so) why would North Korea engage in nuclear negotiations?” he said.
He added that US allies may also reassess their security dependence, citing Gulf states and South Korea, where US air defense systems were reportedly redeployed to the Middle East.
Vaez concluded that the conflict risks accelerating nuclear proliferation globally.
“Increasingly, countries would start looking at weapons of mass destruction as a way of protecting themselves,” he said.
