Three weeks into the war with Iran, the trajectory of the conflict is beginning to resemble some of the worst-case scenarios long modelled by policymakers and analysts, according to Ilan Goldenberg, a former US Department of Defence official and Middle East expert.

Regime change backfires: “The U.S. and Israel may have produced regime transition in the worst possible way,” Goldenberg said, arguing that the killing of Iran’s ageing leadership under external attack has strengthened hardliners. Rather than gradual change, “the regime made its most consequential decision under existential external threat… Disastrous.”

Oil shock scenario materialises: Goldenberg noted that current disruptions echo earlier war games. “What we’re seeing now was considered one of the least likely but worst outcomes,” he said, with scenarios projecting oil spikes to “$175–$200 per barrel” and prolonged supply disruption.

Iran rewrites Hormuz playbook: Contrary to expectations, Tehran has managed selective disruption. “Iran is still moving oil through the Strait of Hormuz while disrupting everyone else,” he said, calling it a shift that “changes the calculus.” In the war game calculations it was expected that the Strait would be closed to everyone.

A familiar quagmire dynamic: The US risks repeating past conflicts. “It’s a recipe for a quagmire where we win every battle and lose the war,” Goldenberg said, as Iran relies on sporadic but high-impact attacks and the US superior firepower has been largely neutralised, while ammo stocks are being depleted extremely rapidly.

Asymmetric victory conditions: The imbalance in objectives favours Tehran. “Once ‘regime change’ becomes the goal, the bar for American success becomes enormous. Iran’s bar is simple: survive and keep causing disruption.”

No good exit options: Goldenberg warned that all military pathways are unattractive. “The options for ending this war now are all bad,” he said, from prolonged occupation to destabilisation strategies that risk civil war.

Esfahan risks escalation: Targeting nuclear material deep inside Iran is impractical. “Huge risk… you’d have been on the ground for a LONG time,” he said, exposing US forces to counterattack.

Kharg Island temptation: Striking export infrastructure may appeal politically but carries risks. “It’s still a potentially costly ground operation… the Iranian government only has to survive to win.”

Diplomacy as least bad outcome: A negotiated exit remains the most viable path. “The least bad option is the classic diplomatic off-ramp,” he said, even if “unsatisfying.”

US-Israel divergence: Strategic goals are not aligned. “Trump just needs a limited win… whereas for Netanyahu a weak unstable Iran… is a fine outcome.”

Gulf states in strategic bind: Regional allies face difficult choices. “They didn’t start this war and didn’t want it… Neither doubling down… nor placating the Iranians seems overwhelmingly appealing.”

Russia emerges as winner: Moscow benefits from the fallout. “One clear geopolitical winner so far: Russia… this war is a win win win.”

China’s latent leverage: Beijing may play a stabilising role. “A prolonged disruption in the Gulf hits Beijing hard… That gives China a real incentive to help push toward an end to the conflict.”

 

Ilan Goldenberg is a Senior Vice President and Chief Policy Officer at J Street. He was previously at the White House, Department of Defence and the Department of State. The contents of this comment first appeared in a post on social media.