The Real Cost of the Iran–Israel Conflict

The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is rapidly becoming the focus of global attention. This confrontation is not just a threat to stability in the Middle East — it is already shifting international political energy and resources, distracting world leaders from other urgent issues, first and foremost the war in Ukraine.

A further escalation, particularly through missile exchanges between Tehran and Jerusalem, could have unpredictable consequences. One of the greatest risks is the potential destabilization of the Caucasus — a vital geopolitical bridge between Europe and the Middle East. A breakdown in this region could trigger a chain reaction far beyond its borders.

The collapse of the Iranian regime would not automatically mean a victory for democracy. On the contrary, it could lead to chaos, ethnic conflict, and waves of refugees moving through the Caucasus, Turkey, Europe — and potentially even toward Ukraine and Russia. Europe may face a new migration crisis, similar to the Syrian wave, which in turn could strengthen radical political forces — both far-right and far-left — that traditionally sympathize with Moscow.

The resilience of the Iranian regime hinges on the strength of its security apparatus, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — an institution with structural and ideological similarities to the KGB or the SS. If the apparatus proves weak, the regime may fall. If it remains effective, it is likely to survive even external pressure.

Ukraine is not a direct party to the Israel-Iran conflict, yet it cannot remain unaffected. The collapse of the Iranian regime would weaken Russia by depriving it of a key ally. But regional chaos could complicate Ukraine’s security landscape in both geopolitical and migratory terms. A more optimistic scenario — where the Iranian regime survives but loses its nuclear ambitions and aggressive posture — could reduce the threat to both Israel and Ukraine.

The position of the United States, particularly under the leadership of Donald Trump, will be critical. Trump has no desire to drag America into a new war with Iran. His administration is more likely to seek separate deals with Tehran — even if they fail to account for Israel’s interests. At the same time, Trump remains skeptical of Vladimir Putin’s so-called peace initiatives, believing that global problems should be solved solely on America’s terms.

Putin, in contrast, is trying to use the Iran crisis to his advantage — weakening Europe’s support for Ukraine by fueling new waves of migration. His calls for negotiations with Ukraine are little more than an attempt to legitimize Ukraine’s surrender. Moscow’s demands for the “demilitarization” of Ukraine and recognition of occupied territories have nothing to do with peace.

Equally troubling is Trump’s approach to the G7. He does not see it as a union of democracies, but merely as an economic forum — one that, in his view, should include Putin and Xi Jinping. His refusal to attend G7 and NATO summits signals a reluctance to work with traditional allies — and this directly undermines support for Ukraine.

Iran’s apocalyptic rhetoric toward the United States and Israel should be treated with caution. Tehran is likely trying to intimidate Washington to avoid direct military confrontation. But even if these threats are exaggerated, the situation remains tense and unpredictable.

In the coming weeks, we can expect increased diplomatic activity. Trump will likely seek to avoid open conflict, while Iran will attempt to prolong the situation, continuing low-level attacks to improve its negotiating position. Israel, meanwhile, will seek to bring the United States more directly into the conflict, with the goal of halting Iran’s nuclear program once and for all.

The global situation is extraordinarily complex and deeply interconnected. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, US policy, the strategies of Russia and China — all these elements form one geopolitical chessboard. The decisions being made now will not only determine the future of individual nations. They will shape the future of the world.