Analysts Predict Costly U.S. Iran War

Ordinary consumers in the United States and around the world may soon face sharper price hikes at the pump and higher utility bills if a new front in the war with Iran opens. Analysts warn that a third round of fighting between the U.S., Israel, and Iran could be the most destructive to date. This potential escalation is expected to follow the U.S. midterm elections scheduled for November 3.

Danny Citrinowicz, an Israeli analyst with over two decades of intelligence experience in the military, states that a renewed war seems almost inevitable. He currently works with the Institute for National Security Studies. Citrinowicz argues that attacking the Iranian regime will not cause a change in government. Instead, it will drag the entire region into a broader conflict, a view he maintains is still correct. He asserts that President Donald Trump has only bad and worse options in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. and Israel have already engaged Iran in two separate wars over the last 18 months. The first conflict began in June 2025 with strikes on nuclear sites and lasted 12 days before a fragile ceasefire. Fighting resumed in February following a major U.S. military buildup. That phase started with Israeli attacks on senior Iranian leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Citrinowicz expects a third round to target Gulf energy facilities, civilian infrastructure, and communication systems. This includes internet cables running under the Strait of Hormuz. He also notes the possibility of limited attacks by Iran's land army on Gulf states that host U.S. bases. Kuwait and Bahrain are specific examples of potential targets. The goal would be to inflict maximum damage on the American economy.

Since the summer truce collapsed, both sides have largely held off on fresh strikes on bases or territory. However, the conflict has not gone quiet. The U.S. has blockaded Iranian ports, and Iran has continued targeting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. These actions are pushing up global energy costs. On Thursday, Trump accused Iran of trying to inflate oil prices before the midterms. He claimed the country was making up fake hits and mines on Truth Social.

A report from the Critical Threats Project and the Institute for the Study of War agrees with this reading. It says the attacks on vessels are meant to pressure Washington into meeting Iranian demands. These demands include relief from sanctions, reparations for earlier damage, the release of billions in frozen assets, and the right to keep enriched uranium. Mediators from Pakistan and Qatar have spent weeks trying to restart talks without success.

Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution warns that the war has likely pushed Iran's leadership to double down on its revolutionary ideology. She expects retaliation from proxies such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups could target soft economic sites like airports. Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says Trump lacks a clear goal. He argues that no military knockout punch will force Iran to capitulate.

The human toll is already heavy. Western NGOs report more than 7,000 deaths in Iran. Lebanese media report over 4,000 deaths in Lebanon. Twenty-one U.S. service members have been killed, mostly in Iranian strikes on Gulf bases. More than 70 Israelis have also died. Deaths have been recorded in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen. The New York Times reports the Pentagon is drafting a new battle plan. It is unknown if Trump will approve it.

Netanyahu has spoken of finishing the job and bringing down the Iranian regime. He faces voters in a close race in the coming days. Citrinowicz says a widening crisis could help Netanyahu stay in power by enabling an emergency unity government. The danger is that political calculation combines with an Iranian development that Netanyahu may inflate, producing an unnecessary attack. Sadjadpour argues diplomacy is not dead but has been narrowed by Trump's maximalist aims. Iran would compromise only under existential economic pressure paired with a clear diplomatic exit. If you are asking them to change their identity, that is not going to succeed.