After the bombs, Iran faces uncertain paths forward
Iran signals readiness for talks, but insists any negotiations must feel fair, respectful, and beneficial to both sides.
As tensions between Washington and Tehran climb to dangerous levels, the question many are asking is not just whether conflict will erupt, but what might follow if it does.
US President Donald Trump has delivered a blunt warning to Iran: failure to reach a nuclear agreement would bring consequences more severe than anything the country has faced before. Iranian leaders, while signaling openness to talks, insist negotiations must be “mutually beneficial, fair and equitable.” At the same time, Tehran’s tone has hardened. Iran’s foreign minister has warned that the country’s armed forces have their “fingers on the trigger,” ready to respond forcefully to any attack.
Against this backdrop, analysts outline several possible futures if the standoff turns into open conflict. None are simple. All carry profound risks, not just for Iran and the United States, but for the wider region and global stability.
Regime falls, democracy emerges
The most optimistic scenario imagines US military action weakening Iran’s ruling system enough to bring about its collapse. American air and naval power could target key pillars of the Islamic Republic: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij paramilitary force, missile depots, launch facilities, and elements of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Already under pressure from economic sanctions and years of public unrest, the leadership might struggle to survive a sustained assault. In this best-case outcome, a power vacuum could open space for democratic change and a more representative government.
History, however, urges caution. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the NATO intervention in Libya both aimed, directly or indirectly, at regime change. Neither produced stable democracies. Instead, they unleashed years of violence and instability. Iran, larger and more complex than either country, could prove even harder to reshape.
Survival with strings attached
Another possibility is that the Islamic Republic survives, but under heavy constraints. This scenario resembles Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro, where intense external pressure failed to topple the regime but forced painful economic and political adjustments.
In Iran’s case, the leadership might be pushed to scale back support for regional militias, curb parts of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, and ease repression at home. The system would remain intact, but more tightly boxed in.
Yet after nearly five decades of resisting outside pressure, Iran’s leadership has shown little appetite for major compromise. Deep mistrust of the United States makes this outcome possible in theory, but difficult in practice.
Regime replaced by a military state
A more likely, and darker, outcome is the rise of an even harder system. US strikes could weaken civilian institutions and empower the military, particularly the IRGC. In this scenario, Iran would not become more moderate, but more militarised.
Power could shift decisively toward commanders who view confrontation with the West as inevitable. Diplomacy would fade further into the background, replaced by a security-first mindset that leaves little room for reform or reconciliation.
Iran strikes back
Iran is unlikely to absorb US attacks without retaliation. While it cannot match American forces directly, it possesses a large stockpile of ballistic missiles and drones, many hidden in underground facilities or remote terrain.
US military bases across the Gulf, including in Bahrain and Qatar, could be targeted. Iran might also strike infrastructure in allied countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco facilities, attributed to an Iranian-backed militia, revealed how vulnerable regional energy assets can be.
Gulf states aligned with Washington fear becoming collateral damage in a conflict they did not choose.
Iran lays mines in the Gulf
Another tactic would be to disrupt global trade by mining Gulf waters. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, shipping lanes were mined, forcing foreign navies to intervene.
The Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Iran and Oman, is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. About a fifth of global oil and LNG exports pass through it. Iran regularly rehearses rapid mine-deployment drills, and even a temporary closure could send shockwaves through oil markets and global supply chains.
A US warship is hit
One of the gravest risks is the loss of an American naval vessel. US commanders have long worried about “swarm attacks,” where Iran uses waves of drones and fast boats to overwhelm defences.
The IRGC Navy specialises in this kind of asymmetric warfare. The sinking of a US ship, especially if sailors were captured, would be a deep humiliation for Washington and could trigger massive escalation. History offers sobering reminders, from the USS Cole bombing in 2000 to the USS Stark incident in 1987.
Regime falls, chaos follows
Perhaps the most feared outcome is total collapse followed by chaos. Neighbours like Qatar and Saudi Arabia worry that Iran could fracture, as Syria, Yemen, and Libya did.
Ethnic tensions might flare as Kurds, Baluchis, and other minorities seek protection amid a power vacuum. For a nation of roughly 93 million people, the consequences would be catastrophic: mass displacement, humanitarian disaster, and regional instability on an unprecedented scale.
In the end, every path carries risk. What comes after the bombs may matter far more than the bombs themselves.