Probable scenarios on the Iran-Israel escalation ladder – Firstpost

On the night of Friday, June 13, 2025, Israeli airstrikes and missiles/drones targeted Iranian nuclear and command sites and killed several key military leaders and nuclear scientists, once again heralding West Asia into chaos—a theatre of perpetual instability. The attack showcased a calculated strike—precise, brutal, and sending a loud strategic message. In response, Iran’s retaliatory barrage of missiles and drones partially penetrated the famous Iron Dome and hit Israeli air bases and civilian centres.

On Saturday night, Israel hit the world’s largest natural gas field and other key Iranian energy facilities, in a break from the past, to which Iran retaliated. The strike-counterstrike continues as of June 16 unabated. Even on Monday morning, Iranian missiles struck Israel’s Tel Aviv and the port city of Haifa. These strikes are not a one-time punitive response but a calibrated escalation which possibly could ignite into a more volatile equation made infinitely more dangerous by the presence of strategic actors—both state and proxy—and the ever-looming threat of nuclear proliferation.

Escalation Ladder: Cycle of Compellence and Reprisal?

Rung 1: Decapitation Strikes – The Political Kill Plot

The most intellectually seductive yet logistically complex option is a surgical strike on leadership—taking out political figures on either side. The Israelis have a record of eliminating Iranian nuclear scientists and Quds commanders, but targeting Iran’s Supreme Leadership or figures within the Guardian Council would represent a quantum leap in aggression. Likewise, Iran could go after an Israeli minister or even the prime minister via proxies like Hezbollah or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

This rung is as psychological as it is strategic—it destabilises confidence in governance and showcases reach. The danger? Such actions invite an avalanche response. It’s a knife-edge game of mutual political decapitation. Worst of all, it could tempt a third-party actor—the United States—to dust off its playbook for regime change, not with boots but with cyber warfare, internal dissent exploitation, and economic strangulation. Washington’s past proficiency in orchestrated regime turnover—Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh—makes this an attractive but high-risk gamble.

Rung 2: Energy Infrastructure – Economic Disembowelment

Logically, the target remains what hurts most: oil and energy infrastructure. Iran’s refineries, shipping ports, and pipelines are sitting ducks for the Israeli Air Force and its growing AI-enabled strike capability. Conversely, Iran’s missile arsenal will continue to target the Israeli ports. Iran has already attacked Israel’s Haifa refinery.

But here’s the rub: energy attacks invite global consequences. Tanker wars in the Strait of Hormuz, drone attacks on Saudi pipelines, or cyberattacks on Western oil companies could spike global oil prices, tank economies, and generate international pressure. This rung isn’t just about Iran or Israel—it’s about the global commons. Hence, it is the most logical but also the most escalatory in economic terms.

Rung 3: American Entrapment – False Flags & Base Strikes

Here lies one of the most desperate yet increasingly plausible scenarios: Iran directly striking US bases in Iraq, Qatar, or Bahrain. Alternatively, Israel might exaggerate an Iranian attack to drag Washington onto the battlefield. The logic is time-tested—shared enemies create shared resolve. Tel Aviv knows that an early American entry guarantees strategic air dominance and wider deterrence.

Iran, for its part, might calculate that hitting American assets will galvanise its Shia proxies across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into mass mobilisation—an all-out regional conflict where it can bog down US forces in asymmetric attrition. This is a dangerous gambit, but one with historical parallels—recall the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and the 2003 Iraq insurgency.

Rung 4: Civilian Centres – The Doctrine of Shock Paralysis

Should a state wish to paralyse its adversary’s governance, the next logical leap is to target civilian and urban command nodes. Israeli strikes on Tehran’s administrative sectors—or Iranian missile attacks on Tel Aviv—would signal a pivot from strategic denial to existential punishment. The use of AI-assisted kill chains, loitering munitions, and deep-penetration UAVs makes such scenarios technically feasible.

This rung is most likely and devastating—as it carries both symbolic and strategic costs. It is here that psychological warfare peaks: killing civilians to shatter morale, collapsing institutions to induce chaos, and then broadcasting it globally to control the narrative to save humanity. It could be followed by nuclear sabre rattling to cause global alarm. But this rung also risks irreversible dehumanisation. Once cities are hit, public support for restraint vanishes.

Rung 5: The Nuclear Gambit – From Ambiguity to Assertion

Iran may not possess operational nuclear weapons—the June 2025 strikes also have reportedly destroyed a few of its underground enrichment facilities. A test, whether atmospheric or subterranean, would serve a dual purpose: to signal capability and to deter further strikes.

This is the most likely next rung. Unlike actual nuclear use, a test provides strategic leverage while keeping escalation at arm’s length. North Korea has used this playbook effectively. Iran could follow suit—calculating that ambiguity no longer works and that deterrence through revelation is more effective than denial.

However, such a test could provoke a pre-emptive counterforce doctrine from Israel—especially given Tel Aviv’s longstanding opacity about its nuclear arsenal. The moment nuclear tests enter the narrative, the conflict graduates to a global nuclear crisis.

Rung 6: Total Overmatch – The Stone Age Strategy

At this point, the West may decide it’s safer to remove Iran’s leadership altogether. Think Gulf War 2003 but with precision instead of shock and awe. This least desired rung would involve sustained cyber paralysis, elimination of the IRGC top brass, and kinetic neutralisation of Iran’s missile grid. Simultaneously, ground operations in Yemen could open a second front, further isolating Tehran.

This rung is a fantasy for hawks—a war-ending blow. But history cautions otherwise. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—none yielded stability post-decapitation. It breeds insurgency, fragmentation, and strategic vacuums that groups like ISIS eagerly fill.

Rung 7: The Grand Conflagration – CRIN vs West

The nightmare scenario is a full-spectrum war: Israel, the US, the UK, and France versus an informal but operational bloc—CRIN (China-Russia-Iran-North Korea). Signs already point towards this: China warned the US against intervening, Russia offered S-500 support, North Korea is flexing its nuclear sabre rattling, and Iranian proxies are going active.

This worst-case rung transforms a regional conflict into a proto–World War. Aerial combat over the Persian Gulf, naval standoffs in the Arabian Sea, cyber-attacks on global financial systems—this isn’t fiction. It’s a repeat of 1914 with drones and hypersonics.

Next Rung: A Prediction

The next rung is likely Rung 5: A Nuclear Test by Iran. The logic is straightforward. After suffering humiliating infrastructure losses and a perceived strategic imbalance, Tehran must demonstrate survivability and deterrence. A test allows it to redraw red lines and forces the world—especially the West—to pause.

This move serves both domestic and international purposes. Internally, it shows defiance. Externally, it forces negotiations under the shadow of escalation. It may trigger sanctions, but Iran already operates under a sanctions regime. What changes are there in the calculus of punishment vs survival?

However, should Israel respond kinetically to this test—especially with American backing—we may skip directly to Rung 6. And if CRIN comes to Iran’s defence, Rung 7 becomes the unthinkable reality.

Conclusion: The War We Think We Can Control

The danger of escalation ladders is that each rung seems logical at the time. It is not necessarily sequential or singular. One move invites another or many others, and before long, deterrence transforms into destruction.

In this game, everyone believes they can manage the fire. History says otherwise.

The author is former Director General, Mechanised Forces. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.