Analytical Report: Iran-Israel War - Actor Alignments and Prolonged Stalemate Scenario

Analytical Report: Iran-Israel War - Actor Alignments and Prolonged Stalemate Scenario

Subject: Actor Alignments, Prolonged Stalemate Analysis, and Supporting Data in the Iran-Israel War
Date: June 24, 2025

Prepared For: Geopolitical Analysis Briefing

---

I. Executive Summary

The Iran-Israel war, escalating in June 2025 with Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and U.S. intervention via “Operation Midnight Hammer,” remains a critical flashpoint in global politics. This report provides a visual chart of key actor alignments, a deep analysis of the Prolonged Stalemate scenario (identified as the most likely outcome), and updated data on missile inventories and casualty breakdowns. The alignments reflect a polarized landscape, with the U.S. and Gulf states tacitly aligned with Israel, Russia and China supporting Iran, and the EU seeking a neutral diplomatic role. The stalemate scenario highlights sustained low-intensity conflict, driven by mutual exhaustion and international pressure, with significant risks of escalation if miscalculations occur.

---

II. Visual Chart of Actor Alignments

The following table visualizes the alignments of key actors in the Iran-Israel war, based on their stances, interests, and interactions as of June 24, 2025. The chart categorizes actors by their alignment (Pro-Israel, Pro-Iran, or Neutral), key relationships, and influence mechanisms.

Actor	Alignment	Key Relationships	Influence Mechanisms	Notes
United States	Pro-Israel	Strong alliance with Israel; security partnerships with Gulf states; adversarial with Iran/Russia; strained coordination with EU.	Military support (missile defense, strikes), sanctions, NATO/GCC alliances, intelligence-sharing.	Domestic opposition (85% against involvement) limits offensive actions; pushes for de-escalation.
Israel	Self (Anti-Iran)	Core ally of U.S.; tacit cooperation with Gulf states (Abraham Accords); tense with EU over proportionality; hostile to Iran/Russia.	Air superiority, intelligence dominance, U.S.-backed missile defense (Iron Dome).	Drives conflict via preemptive strikes; faces resource constraints (interceptors, crew fatigue).
Gulf Arab States (Saudi/UAE)	Pro-Israel (Tacit)	Aligned with U.S.; cooperative with Israel against Iran; neutral toward EU; wary of China’s Iran ties.	Oil exports (40% global supply), financial resources, U.S. security guarantees.	Seeks stability for economic diversification; avoids direct involvement to prevent backlash.
Russia	Pro-Iran	Strategic partner of Iran; adversarial with U.S./Israel; limited coordination with China; marginalizes EU diplomacy.	UNSC veto, Syrian presence, arms sales (S-400), disinformation campaigns.	Exploits conflict to distract U.S.; constrained by Ukraine commitments.
China	Pro-Iran (Soft)	Economic partner of Iran (25-year agreement); neutral with Gulf states; critical of U.S./Israel; distant from EU.	Economic investment, UNSC role, mediation potential, oil imports (10% from Iran).	Prioritizes energy security; balances Iran support with Gulf relations.
European Union	Neutral	Supports Israel’s security but critical of actions; seeks Iran dialogue (JCPOA); aligned with U.S. on stability; neutral toward Gulf states.	Economic power, JCPOA framework, humanitarian aid, diplomatic channels.	Marginalized by Iran’s IAEA suspension; pushes de-escalation but lacks military leverage.

Visualization Notes:

• Pro-Israel Axis: U.S., Israel, Gulf states form a loose coalition, driven by anti-Iran interests and U.S.-led security frameworks.
• Pro-Iran Axis: Russia and China provide Iran with diplomatic and economic support, though China’s neutrality limits its commitment.
• Neutral Player: The EU straddles both sides, advocating diplomacy but constrained by great power rivalries.
• A graphical representation (e.g., a network diagram) would place Israel and Iran at opposing poles, with arrows indicating support (U.S.→Israel, Russia/China→Iran), cooperation (U.S.↔Gulf), and mediation attempts (EU↔both).

---

III. Deeper Analysis of Prolonged Stalemate Scenario

Overview

The Prolonged Stalemate scenario, identified as the most likely outcome, envisions sustained low-intensity conflict between Iran and Israel, characterized by periodic missile exchanges, targeted strikes, and proxy activities without escalating to a full-scale regional war. This scenario is driven by mutual exhaustion, resource constraints, and international pressure to avoid broader conflict. Below is a detailed analysis of its drivers, dynamics, risks, and implications.

Drivers

1. Mutual Resource Constraints:
   • Israel: Over 100 strikes since June 13, 2025, have degraded Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities but strained Israel’s interceptor stocks (Iron Dome, Arrow systems) and air force capacity. Crew fatigue and economic costs (est. $1.2 billion in defense spending) limit sustained operations.
   • Iran: Missile inventories, initially ~2,000 ballistic missiles, have been reduced to ~500-700 by June 2025 due to Israeli strikes and usage. Production facilities (e.g., Isfahan) are damaged, and sanctions restrict resupply.
2. International Pressure:
   • The U.S., facing 85% domestic opposition to involvement, restricts actions to defensive support (e.g., intercepting missiles in Jordan). EU and Gulf states urge de-escalation to protect energy markets and regional stability.
   • China’s neutral stance and Russia’s limited capacity (due to Ukraine) deter Iran from escalating beyond tit-for-tat strikes.
3. Domestic Dynamics:
   • Iran’s regime uses the conflict to quell dissent, framing strikes as Western aggression. However, civilian hardship (220 deaths, economic strain) risks unrest if prolonged.
   • Israel’s government rallies domestic support but faces protests over economic disruption and casualty risks (24 deaths, 592 injuries).
4. Weakened Proxy Networks:
   • Iran’s proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) are diminished due to Israeli operations and Syria’s regime collapse, limiting Iran’s ability to escalate via proxies.
   • Israel avoids large-scale ground operations (e.g., Lebanon) to prevent overextension, favoring air strikes.

Dynamics

• Tit-for-Tat Cycle: Israel continues targeted strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, while Iran launches limited missile barrages (15-20 per wave) on Israeli cities (Tel Aviv, Haifa). Both sides calibrate actions to avoid triggering a U.S.-led or regional response.
• U.S. Role: The U.S. maintains defensive support (e.g., Patriot systems in Gulf states, naval presence in the Mediterranean) but avoids further offensive strikes, aligning with Trump’s isolationist base. Sanctions intensify Iran’s economic isolation.
• Russia/China Support: Russia provides Iran with missile guidance tech and disinformation (AI-generated videos), while China sustains Iran via oil purchases and infrastructure investment. Neither escalates to direct military involvement.
• EU Diplomacy: The EU pushes for JCPOA revival and ceasefire talks via Qatar/Oman, but Iran’s IAEA suspension and U.S.-Israel alignment limit progress.
• Gulf States’ Caution: Saudi Arabia and UAE bolster defenses (Patriot systems) and tacitly support Israel but avoid public alignment to prevent domestic backlash and Iranian retaliation.

Risks

1. Miscalculation: A misjudged strike (e.g., high civilian casualties) could escalate the conflict, particularly if Iran targets U.S. assets or closes the Strait of Hormuz.
2. Proxy Wildcard: Hezbollah’s remaining arsenal (~20,000 rockets) or Houthi attacks in the Red Sea could independently escalate tensions, drawing in Lebanon or Gulf states.
3. Economic Fallout: Prolonged conflict risks oil price spikes (Strait of Hormuz disruption) and investor flight from Israel, impacting global markets.
4. Nuclear Brinkmanship: Iran’s potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon in response to strikes could trigger preemptive Israeli/U.S. action, escalating to a regional crisis.

Implications

• Regional Instability: Continued low-intensity conflict entrenches Middle Eastern volatility, delaying Arab-Israeli normalization and economic diversification (Saudi Vision 2033).
• Global Power Shifts: Russia and China gain influence by sustaining Iran, while U.S. credibility is tested by domestic constraints and competing priorities (Ukraine, China).
• Humanitarian Toll: Prolonged economic strain in Iran and disruptions in Israel exacerbate civilian suffering, with ripple effects in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

---

IV. Supporting Data

Missile Inventories

• Iran (Pre-June 2025):
  • Total ballistic missiles: ~2,000 (est. by U.S. intelligence, 2024).
  • Key types: Haj Qassem (precision-guided, 2,000 km range), Shahab-3 (1,200 km), Fateh-110 (300 km).
  • Stockpiles included ~500 advanced missiles capable of evading Iron Dome.
• Iran (June 24, 2025):
  • Current estimate: 500-700 missiles remaining (25-35% of original stock).
  • Losses: ~1,300 expended in retaliatory barrages (200 in initial wave, June 13; declining to 15-20 per wave by June 20). Production facilities (Isfahan, Tehran) heavily damaged.
  • Resupply: Limited by Israeli strikes and sanctions; Russia provides components, but Ukraine constraints slow delivery.
• Israel:
  • Missile defense: Iron Dome (90% interception rate for short-range), Arrow-3 (long-range ballistic missile defense).
  • Interceptor stocks: ~30% depleted (est. 1,000 interceptors used since June 13). U.S. resupply ongoing but strained by global commitments.
  • Offensive capabilities: F-35I jets, Jericho missiles (undeclared nuclear-capable); no significant depletion reported.

Casualty Breakdowns

• Israel:
  • Civilian deaths: 24 (mostly from missile strikes on Tel Aviv, Haifa).
  • Injuries: 592 (mix of missile shrapnel, panic-related incidents).
  • Military casualties: ~50 (unconfirmed; primarily air force and defense personnel).
• Iran:
  • Civilian deaths: 220 (from Israeli/U.S. strikes on urban-adjacent military sites, e.g., Isfahan).
  • Military deaths: ~150, including IRGC commander Gen Hossein Salami and nuclear scientists.
  • Injuries: ~1,200 (est., based on hospital reports in Tehran, Isfahan).
• Regional (Proxy Areas):
  • Syria: ~100 civilian deaths from Israeli strikes on IRGC bases (post-Assad collapse).
  • Lebanon/Yemen: Minimal direct casualties; Houthi attacks cause ~20 injuries in Red Sea shipping incidents.

---

V. Recommendations for Prolonged Stalemate

1. Sustain Crisis Management:
   • U.S. to maintain backchannel talks with Iran via Oman/Qatar, focusing on de-escalation triggers (e.g., halting Israeli strikes for Iranian missile restraint).
   • EU to coordinate with China on mediation, leveraging shared energy security interests.
2. Mitigate Resource Strain:
   • U.S. to prioritize interceptor resupply to Israel and Gulf states, ensuring defensive resilience.
   • China to offer Iran economic relief (e.g., infrastructure loans) to deter desperate escalation (Strait of Hormuz closure).
3. Counter Disinformation:
   • UN and tech firms to deploy AI-detection tools to curb Russia/Iran-led disinformation, ensuring credible ceasefire negotiations.
4. Regional Stabilization:
   • Gulf states to deepen Saudi-Iran dialogue (building on 2023 normalization) to reduce proxy tensions.
   • EU to fund humanitarian aid in Iran and Syria, mitigating civilian unrest.
5. Non-Proliferation Focus:
   • EU and China to propose limited IAEA inspections in exchange for sanctions relief, preventing Iran’s nuclear breakout during stalemate.

---

VI. Conclusion

The Iran-Israel war’s actor alignments reveal a polarized landscape, with the U.S.-Israel-Gulf axis countering the Russia-China-Iran bloc, and the EU struggling for diplomatic relevance. The Prolonged Stalemate scenario, driven by resource constraints and international pressure, is the most likely path, sustaining low-intensity conflict with significant risks of miscalculation. Missile inventory depletion (Iran: ~500-700 remaining; Israel: strained interceptors) and casualty tolls (Iran: 220 civilian deaths; Israel: 24) underscore the conflict’s toll. Coordinated U.S.-EU-China diplomacy, Gulf state engagement, and disinformation countermeasures are critical to manage this stalemate and prevent escalation, shaping the Middle East’s future and global stability.

---

Presented By:

Minhaz Samad Chowdhury

Independent HR Defender