How many coffins will Trump send home for the sake of Israel?
An American recession will be the next immediate consequence of U.S. intervention in Israel-Iran war

TEHRAN – West Asia is witnessing a long-feared scenario unfold. For years, analysts, officials, and politicians warned Israel and the United States that any attack on Iran would unleash a devastating wave of retaliation from the Iranian Armed Forces and open the floodgates to a regional conflagration with international reverberations.
But on June 13, Israelis and Americans decided they were willing to bear the brunt of that retaliation if it meant eliminating Iran's nuclear program and destabilizing the Iranian government.
Analysts surmise that the plan was for Israel to attack Iran with American support, thereby shielding the U.S. from the direct consequences. Netanyahu and Trump believed that after assassinating Iran's top commanders and attacking the country's nuclear and military sites, Iran would lack the leadership and resources to mount an effective counterstrike. They also assumed that Iranians would rally behind the foreign aggressor, aiding in the dismantling of what remained of the Iranian government.
Eight days into the war, none of those objectives have been fulfilled. Iran's nuclear sites and military capabilities remain largely intact. Israel can no longer sustain the intensive aerial campaign it launched on the first day. Iranians are more united than ever and moreover, the new generation of Iranian military leaders, who assumed command within hours of their predecessors' assassination, are unleashing a relentless barrage of missiles upon the occupied territories. Major Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Be'er Sheva, have sustained significant damage, and public confidence is plummeting as Israelis realize their authorities initiated a war they couldn't win, endangering the very people they had promised were entering the "safest" space for Jews.
Calls for American intervention are growing within Israel. Hebrew media outlets are increasingly reporting on the Israeli regime’s lack of sufficient military and economic resources to sustain a prolonged and unexpected war with Iran, especially given Iran's substantial remaining missile arsenal. Regime officials are reportedly urging the U.S. to directly intervene, and obliterate Iran's nuclear sites with bunker-buster munitions that Israel lacks, thus allowing Israel to declare victory.
Iran, meanwhile, has acknowledged the United States' assistance to Israel, which it has led to the deaths of over 400 Iranians and injuries to more than 2,000 others, many of whom were women and children. However, Iran has, at least for now, chosen to exclude the U.S. from direct retaliation. Tehran continues to target critical military, political, and strategic sites within Israel, but has warned that it will consider direct U.S. involvement in the war a red line, triggering a response against American interests.
Below, we will examine a list of potential consequences the U.S. – and the rest of the world – would face if it directly attacks Iran.
40,000 Americans in Iran's direct line of fire
First and foremost, the positioning of U.S. personnel and assets in West Asia renders it acutely vulnerable to potential Iranian retaliation, as these are readily within range of Iranian missiles and drones.
Approximately 50,000 American personnel are deployed in the region under the Pentagon's command, and the U.S. has invested billions of dollars in its 19 bases across West Asia, including in Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE.
The successful strikes by Iraqi and Syrian Resistance forces against American bases in 2023 and 2024, carried out in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, demonstrated that despite significant financial investment in security, these bases remain susceptible to damage and devastation. Given the Resistance forces' proven ability to effectively target American assets with relatively unsophisticated drones, it is all but certain that Iran could decimate these locations with its state-of-the-art weaponry, which have been breaching multiple layers of Israeli, Western, and Arab defenses in and around the occupied territories.
"The U.S. cannot simply launch a military operation in Iran and withdraw. It would be drawn into a conflict far exceeding the scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Mahdi Khanalizadeh, a West Asia scholar and expert. "That will end Trump's presidency far sooner than the three years he has left."
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz
Approximately half of the world's oil and gas reserves are located in or near the Persian Gulf, and the majority of this resource destined for global markets must transit the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime chokepoint under Iran's control.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calls the Strait "the world’s most important oil transit choke point," with roughly one-fourth of the world's total petroleum liquids consumption passing through it.
Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s parliament and a former commander in the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), recently stated that closing the waterway "is under consideration" and that Iran will "make the best decision with determination."
Washington's direct involvement in the war will most certainly push Iran to take this step and close the Hormuz Strait. Western media reports suggest Iran has a "robust" navy and has already positioned its forces to take action should the U.S. begin it's aggression against Iran.
Analysts warn that closing the Strait of Hormuz would unleash economic chaos worldwide. The immediate halt to a vast amount of global oil supply would trigger a massive price spike, cripple industries and drive up inflation. A global recession would likely follow as businesses struggle with increased costs and consumers cut spending. Trade would be severely disrupted, supply chains would collapse, and geopolitical tensions would escalate. East Asia and Europe, heavily reliant on Persian Gulf oil, would be particularly vulnerable, as would the Persian Gulf states themselves, despite their reserves.
The U.S. may be able to cushion itself against the disruption better than other countries due to its own high oil production. However, its economy and consumers would still face devastating financial consequences from such a closure.
Trump’s own base is also on the line
The United States now faces the reality that Iran remains undefeated and, according to Scott Ritter, former US Marine and UN weapons inspector, an Israeli defeat is inevitable. "The critical question now," Ritter states, "is whether the United States will refrain from direct intervention, pursuing diplomacy to avert the rapid escalation of this conflict, or whether it will directly enter the war to save Israel from defeat."
Ritter contends that choosing the latter course would cost Trump a significant portion of his domestic base. These voters supported him based on his promise to end both the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza. Trump pledged to put America first, and endangering the lives of 40,000 Americans, driving oil prices to $500 a gallon, and triggering an environmental catastrophe in West Asia would be a stark betrayal of that vow.
"The war between Iran and Israel does not constitute a national security imperative for the United States. Transforming it into one would alienate millions who voted for Trump believing his promise to be a president of peace.”
A U.S. strike is not even guaranteed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities
Last but not least, on the list of why it is unwise for the U.S. to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, is that it’s not even certain whether American bunker busters would be able to take out Iran’s nuclear sites, the most important of which being Fordow.
Buried deep beneath a mountain, the facility is protected by almost 100 meters of bedrock, creating immense difficulties for even the most powerful bunker-buster bombs. While the U.S. possesses the GBU-57, a massive weapon specifically designed for such targets, experts question whether even multiple direct hits can guarantee the facility's destruction. The precision and number of bombs required, along with the inherent risks of such a complex operation, contribute to the uncertainty.