What can happen in the future?
The scenarios below are analytical "spaces of possibility" (not predictions). They affected by political decisions, military risk and diplomatic initiative.
Scenario A: Controlled de-escalation
- Limitation of target selection and pace, as well as clearer "red lines".
- Mediation via third parties and time-limited measures.
- Focus on air defence/protection rather than further offensive expansion.
Scenario B: Prolonged campaign
- Sustained attacks against missile production, warehouses and maritime capacities.
- Gradual wear and tear on ammunition, air defense and logistics.
- Increased pressure on domestic public opinion, the budget and alliance coordination.
Scenario C: Regional expansion
- More countries are drawn in through bases, airspace or direct attack against critical infrastructure.
- Increased risk of maritime disturbances in strategic waters.
- High probability of unintended events (misidentification, escalating retaliation).
Scenario D: Political change
- Changes in Iranian or US domestic policy may change the direction of the conflict quickly.
- International sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure compromises can open up agreements – or lock positions.
Decision points to follow
Target selection
Expand or narrow the target types (military vs. infrastructure)?
Expand or narrow the target types (military vs. infrastructure)?
Maritime and energy security
Indicator of conflict spread and international response.
Indicator of conflict spread and international response.
Diplomatic track
Sign for negotiation, ceasefire or “pause for humanitarian access”.
Sign for negotiation, ceasefire or “pause for humanitarian access”.
Allied support
Access to bases, airspace and air defenses affects operations execution.
Access to bases, airspace and air defenses affects operations execution.
New signals to follow (updated March 10)
- Operating friction: The friendly-fire incident in Kuwait shows that technical/operational risk alone can change the pace of decision-making.
- March 5 signal: Stricter identification routines and shorter warning loops can reduce accident risk, but also increase it the need for close coordination between partners.
- Coordination with partners: Changes in identification and notification routines can affect both pace and target selection.
- Diplomatic window: Higher accident risk may increase the push for de-escalating measures without the main conflict necessarily stops.
- 6 March signal from the UN: Public warning that the situation can get out of control, with an explicit call for serious negotiations.
- March 7 Checkpoint: No obvious public confirmed main course change in open primary sources after March 6, something which points to continued high uncertainty in the long term.
- March 8 signal: Reported hits against oil installations in Tehran and reported damage to desalination infrastructure in Bahrain increases the likelihood that the next phase of the conflict will turn towards wider pressure on critical civil infrastructure.
- March 10 signal: Continued overnight strikes around Tehran and AP reporting on new cross-regional attacks indicate a prolonged high-intensity phase with sustained stress on regional civilian and energy systems.
- Implications for the scenarios: Scenario C (regional expansion) and B (long-term campaign) are given higher weight when energy and water systems in the Gulf are affected at the same time.
See also Important people for who takes decisions and communicates public lines.