Five Ways the Iran-Israel Conflict Could Conclude – Channel 4 News

Iran’s Future in the Balance: Analyzing Potential Outcomes After U.S.-Israeli Strikes

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with several of his deputies and hundreds of Iranian civilians, has thrust the region into a dangerous new phase of conflict. The attacks by the U.S. and Israel have prompted retaliatory strikes from Tehran against American allies across the Middle East, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, resulting in over 20 casualties.

As tensions escalate, experts are weighing possible outcomes for Iran’s future. According to specialists who have analyzed the developing situation, several scenarios could unfold in the coming months.

The most likely outcome, according to Anoush Ehteshami, professor of international relations at Durham University, is a continuation of the existing regime, albeit in an altered form. Based on the current state of affairs as of March 2026, Ehteshami predicts that remaining senior figures in Iran’s power structures will “be more flexible,” resulting in “regime adjustment” rather than complete regime change.

“The regime is likely to stay in power but in a different form,” Professor Ehteshami explained, suggesting that while leadership faces transformation, the underlying governmental structure may persist.

Urban Coningham, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), reinforces this assessment, noting that Iran will likely see a “new supreme leader, supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or a clerical leader, who Trump feels he can do business with.” According to Coningham, the U.S. would be satisfied with a regime that meets two critical objectives: controlling Iran’s uranium enrichment program and securing concessions on missile production capabilities.

Despite President Trump’s public encouragement of Iranian protests, Coningham indicates that reducing the regime’s internal repression is not a top priority for American policymakers.

The specter of another “forever war” with U.S. troops on the ground appears unlikely. Such a scenario would directly contradict Trump’s campaign promise: “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.” Critics argue this pledge was already broken when the U.S. bombed Iran, but deploying ground forces would represent a dramatic escalation.

Professor Ehteshami considers this only a remote possibility, noting that Trump “understands the magnitude” of such a decision. He cites insufficient U.S. troop numbers, the months required for deployment preparations, and the improbability of Congressional approval as significant barriers. Coningham concurs, adding that the White House “feels it can accomplish its goals with airpower alone.”

Complete regime collapse presents another possible outcome, though experts rate it as an “outlier possibility.” Such a scenario would require “not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands or millions on the streets” from “a cross section of Iranian society,” according to Coningham. The protests would need to be so extensive that the regime could not suppress them, potentially causing “senior government figures to flee, leaving a vacuum of power.”

Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last shah who has lived in exile since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has positioned himself as a potential transitional leader. He recently claimed “millions” of Iranians consider him “uniquely placed” to guide the country toward democracy. Polling data from Dutch academics suggests approximately one-third of Iranians strongly support this idea, with another third strongly opposed.

However, experts remain skeptical about Pahlavi’s prospects. Professor Ehteshami notes the crown prince “has got nothing behind him” and would need significant defections within the military establishment to gain power. Coningham suggests Pahlavi might only emerge as an interim leader—appointed by Israel and the U.S.—in the unlikely event of complete regime collapse.

The possibility of democracy remains a distant hope. While polling indicates 89 percent of Iranians consider a democratic political system to be a “very good” or “fairly good” governance model, implementing such a system would require either a major transformation of the current regime or its replacement by entities committed to democratic principles.

Despite significant protests in recent years, including last month’s uprising that triggered violent retaliation under Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran lacks a clear, organized alternative ready to establish democratic institutions. Coningham concludes that without regime change, there is “absolutely no chance” of democracy, though “if regime change happens,” democratic development “would be quite likely.”

As regional powers calculate their next moves, Iran’s path forward remains uncertain, with global implications hanging in the balance.