To Intervene or not to Intervene – Consequences of a US Entry into the Iran-Israel Conflict

One week has passed since Israel carried out its initial attack on Iran, resulting in a series of escalations between the two countries. In the case of Israel, the explanation for these attacks against Iran was centred on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to set their nuclear programme back some years. However, the purpose of these attacks slowly changed from preventative to decapitation, as Israel began to target individuals affiliated with the Iranian regime as well as vital infrastructure relating to the energy sector. On the other hand, Iran’s attacks have so far been retaliatory striking areas in Israel more as a response to Israeli aggression.

While there have been calls for de-escalation and diplomatic dialogue from the MENA countries, the conflict has only continued to escalate further with no end in sight. To add more fuel to this ever-growing fire, the US has come out with mixed messages, as Donald Trump has stated that he wanted to end the conflict for good, while also stating that Iran should have made a deal and now will face consequences. With military aircraft making its way to MENA and the US evacuating some of its non-military staff from the region, it can be argued that the US is planning to join Israel in their attacks against Iran. The purpose of this article is to analyse the potential consequences of a possible US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict. This analysis will examine the following potential consequences of a US interference in the Iran-Israel conflict:

• All Out Regional War
• Damage to Relations with Existing Partners in the Region
• Domestic Backlash

All Out Regional War

For starters, a potential consequence of the US getting involved in the Iran-Israel conflict is the risk of an all-out war in the MENA region, as a US intervention on behalf of Israel could lead to Iran’s proxies getting involved in the conflict and attacking US military bases, as well as US allies in the region. This is clear as “…if the US intervenes, Iran and regional jihadist groups…will engage to attack Israel and target American military bases in the region, leading to the worst-case scenario of a “wider war.”” (Mousavian, 2024). If this were to be the case, the US would be putting the MENA region in a precarious situation, as a multifront war between the US and Israel, and Iran and its proxies could result in the destabilisation of the region as a whole, which would put US strategic interests at risk. According to Democratic Senator Tim Kaine “A third war in the Middle East in this century would be a horrible, horrible mistake, and it’s going to put U.S. service members at risk and also risk destabilizing the region” (Kaine, 2025 cited in Rosman and Ordoñez, 2025).   The scenario described by Kaine is not a new one, as the Iraq War led to a destabilisation during the 2000s and resulting power vacuum gave rise to transnational terror groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in the 2010s. Therefore, it is imperative that in order to avert any wider war the US should not get involved directly to avoid widening the conflict further.

To avoid this potential consequence, the US should not be involved as a means to maintain some semblance of stability in the region. The US must do what it can on the diplomatic front to contain the conflict and should engage with regional partners to bring about a sustainable agreement that will cease hostilities. Otherwise, an all-out war will put the US assets and interests at risk, which could make the US’ position in the MENA region no longer sustainable, as the US would be dragged into another “forever war” in the region.

Damage to Relations with Existing Partners in the Region

Beyond the consequence of the US intervention possibly resulting in a wider regional war, the argument can be made that the US intervention could possibly damage the relationship that the US cultivated with the Gulf States. The Iran-Israel conflict has serious national security implications for the Gulf States and a US intervention can only increase the risk that they are also dragged into the ongoing conflict. According to James Landale of the BBC, the Gulf States could potentially get dragged in if Iran decides to attack the Gulf States in the case that the Iranian missile attacks fail to do any damage on Israel, as the Gulf States host US military bases (Landale, 2025). A US intervention in the conflict could result in a degradation of the Gulf States’ confidence in the US’ ability to be a security guarantor for the region, as the US intervention would lead to the Gulf States being involved in a support role for the US, which could put Gulf security at high risk.

While these bases in the Gulf show that the Gulf States are strategically aligned with the US, a US intervention could cause damage to the US-Gulf States relationship as the US involvement will be perceived as involved in the conflict but with no power to dictate the outcome. Bilal Saab, Associate Fellow at the Chatham House mentions “Washington’s long-term military and political support for Israel more broadly means it risks being perceived, especially by Arab partners in the region, as being implicated in the conflict – but without the agency to shape the outcome in its favour, protect its reputation and diplomatic standing, and defend its interests” (Saab, 2025). If the Gulf States can sense that the US has no agency to protect its reputation and diplomatic standing, it could result in the Gulf States shifting their support away from the US towards a power that is more reliable in guaranteeing the security of the region, hence leading to US isolation in the region.

Furthermore, the US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict could have consequences for the Gulf economies, which result in a degradation of US-Gulf relations. According to Chloe Cornish and Andrew England of the Financial Times, a US intervention could cause Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz as a form of retaliation, which could be detrimental for the Gulf States as the closure could result in a reduction of oil exports and imports for the region (Cornish and England, 2025). This act would put a strain on the Gulf economies, as the Gulf States are a global supplier of oil and without the ability to export oil products could enter an economic crisis. Beyond the exportation of oil, the Gulf States could also suffer from a lack of foreign direct investment caused by the conflict and the potential US intervention. This is evident as “Prolonged instability could discourage foreign direct investment in the Gulf region, increase business risks, and destabilise energy markets…” (Editorial Staff, 2025). Therefore, it can be argued that a US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict can result in the destabilisation of the Gulf economies, which could potentially result in the damaged US-Gulf relations as the US intervention would show a complete disregard for the Gulf States’ ability to conduct business, whether it is energy or investment related.

Domestic Backlash

Outside of the potential consequences that a US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict may have on the MENA region, the argument can be made that any form of US intervention could also have domestic consequences. An intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict by the US could have ramifications for Trump’s image towards his voter base and supporters in the GOP, as he campaigned on the promise of “American First”. Essentially, the “America First” doctrine which was a central focus of the Trump foreign policy, preaches the end of US involvement in “forever wars” and that foreign policy should serve the US interest above all else (Aguiar, 2025). However, due to the US-Israeli relationship, Trump might not be able to live up to the “America First” promise, as Trump would be obligated to defend Israel against Iran. This is clear as a US intervention could put troops at “…risk for yet another war in the Middle East, one which will be even more difficult to justify to both Trump’s supporters and detractors” (Al Habtoor Research Centre, 2025). If Trump were to intervene in the conflict, it would essentially derail his “America First” policy and would force the US into another “forever war” that can deeply damage the US’ image as security guarantor and peace broker on an international scale. Therefore, it is important that Trump sticks to his “America First” foreign policy agenda in order to prevent potential loss of US troops and promote a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

Furthermore, the domestic consequences for Trump will also be significant, considering his voter base and supporters in politics are completely against a US intervention in the MENA region. According to Economist/YouGov polls “…60% of respondents believe that the “US military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran ” while “…53% of Republican voters don’t not want to see the US get involved in the developing conflict” (Burns, 2025). These numbers show that US voters across the political spectrum, including Trump’s own base, do not want the US to be involved in the Iran-Israel conflict. Moreover, Conservative politicians and political pundits have also voiced their concerns about a potential intervention into the Iran-Israel conflict. These concerns were brought up by major Trump supporters such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tulsi Gabbard, and Steve Bannon who claimed that a war with Iran was not in the US interest and would damage the messaging behind “America First” (Debusmann Jr and Matza, 2025). Any form of intervention risks damaging Trump and the GOP’s image among their supporters, and as the US is entering a midterm election year, an intervention may result in a shift in the balance of power in congress away from Trump and his party. Therefore, it would be in Trump’s best interest not to intervene in the Iran-Israel conflict, as an intervention may cause Trump to lose political capital with his voter base and his staunchest supporters in the legislature.

Conclusion

Overall, the argument can be made that a US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict bares more costs than benefits for Trump. A US intervention could risk all-out war in the region, which could heavily impact the US’ allies in the region and put them at risk of being attacked by Iranian proxies or Iran itself, which could destabilise the region. Moreover, a US intervention could also see US-Gulf States relations becoming strained, as a war can put the Gulf States’ national and economic security in jeopardy. Lastly, a potential intervention will have an impact on Trump domestically, as a majority of Americans do not want to be involved in another endless war in the MENA region and any intervention may have consequences for Trump and the GOP in the upcoming midterm election. It is imperative that Trump does not engage in Israel’s conflict with Iran and instead opts for a diplomatic solution in order to prevent the region from destabilising further. If Trump decides to intervene, the costs will be catastrophic for not only US partners in the MENA region, but also for the US in terms of MENA policy as well as domestic policy.

Sherif Amin is a non-resident fellow of the American Program of the Sixteenth Council