US-Iran Military Conflict — "Destruction Complete" Declaration
President Trump's "destroyed everything" statement and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' declaration of continued retaliation indicate that the US-Iran conflict is rapidly losing room for diplomatic resolution. This spiral of conflict could ripple through the oil market, Middle East alliance structures, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, fundamentally shaking the 2026 global order.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On March 20, 2026, President Trump issued a statement regarding military operations against Iran, declaring, "We have destroyed almost everything that can be destroyed, including the leadership."
- • President Trump emphasized that the operation was proceeding ahead of schedule, expressing confidence in its military achievements.
- • The United States and Israel claimed to have destroyed Iran's missile capabilities, highlighting their military successes.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
A "narrative hegemony" struggle, where both the US and Iran compete with stories of "victory" and "resilience," is driving a "spiral of conflict" that escalates tensions, while US military power projection increases the risk of "imperial overstretch," activating a triple structural dynamic.
── Probabilities & Responses ──────
• Base case 50% — Changes in US military attack frequency, scale and targets of Iranian retaliatory attacks, oil price trends, public opinion on Iran policy in midterm election polls, UN Security Council developments
• Bull case 15% — Reports of secret diplomatic channels, changes in President Trump's statements regarding a "deal," indications of "conditional dialogue" from Iranian leadership, mediation efforts by third countries (Oman, China, Qatar), Israel's reaction
• Bear case 35% — Provocative military activities in the Strait of Hormuz, large-scale attacks on US military bases, sharp rise in oil prices (over $120), refusal of IAEA monitoring at Iranian nuclear facilities, large-scale attacks by Hezbollah and Houthis, signs of transition to wartime footing in the US
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: President Trump's "destroyed everything" statement and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' declaration of continued retaliation indicate that the US-Iran conflict is rapidly losing room for diplomatic resolution. This spiral of conflict could ripple through the oil market, Middle East alliance structures, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, fundamentally shaking the 2026 global order.
- Military — On March 20, 2026, President Trump issued a statement regarding military operations against Iran, declaring, "We have destroyed almost everything that can be destroyed, including the leadership."
- Military — President Trump emphasized that the operation was proceeding ahead of schedule, expressing confidence in its military achievements.
- Military — The United States and Israel claimed to have destroyed Iran's missile capabilities, highlighting their military successes.
- Military — On March 20, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed through state-affiliated media that it "continues missile production even during wartime."
- Diplomacy — The Iranian side has shown its readiness to continue retaliatory attacks, with no clear prospect for de-escalation.
- Diplomacy — Iran's backlash is a direct counter-statement to the US and Israel's emphasis on military achievements.
- Geopolitics — The military clash between the US and Iran is unfolding as a complex tripartite conflict structure involving Israel.
- Information Warfare — Both sides are disseminating contrasting information about their military capabilities and achievements, taking on the characteristics of an information war and narrative battle.
- Security — Iran's statement about "continued missile production" suggests that the damage to its air defense and nuclear-related facilities may not be as devastating as the US claims.
- Regional Affairs — This conflict is directly impacting alliance relationships and energy supply across the Middle East.
- Energy — Military tensions in the Persian Gulf region pose significant risks to the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and global oil supply.
- Domestic Politics — President Trump's "victory declaration" has an aspect of a domestic message ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The roots of the US-Iran conflict trace back to the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution. The United States, which had supported the Pahlavi dynasty, lost its most crucial ally in the Middle East due to the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The subsequent American Embassy hostage crisis (1979-1981) led to a complete rupture in relations between the two countries. For nearly half a century since then, US-Iran relations have swung like a pendulum between hostility and limited engagement.
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was a historic diplomatic breakthrough achieved under the Obama administration. The framework, which offered sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear development, demonstrated the possibility of resolving issues through dialogue. However, when President Trump (first term) unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and adopted a "maximum pressure" policy, this diplomatic framework effectively collapsed. Iran gradually resumed and accelerated uranium enrichment, shortening its technical distance to nuclear weapons.
During the Biden administration (2021-2025), attempts were made to return to the nuclear deal, but negotiations proved difficult and ultimately did not lead to an agreement. During this period, Iran continued to strengthen its projection of influence through the regional "Axis of Resistance" (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq). The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent Gaza conflict elevated this regional conflict to a new dimension.
Since President Trump's re-inauguration in January 2025, policy towards Iran has rapidly escalated. The second Trump administration adopted a "maximum confrontation" approach, surpassing the "maximum pressure" of his first term. Concerns over Iran's nuclear facilities, support for regional proxy forces, and Israel's security have been the three axes used to justify military action.
This military clash, as of March 2026, is the result of decades of accumulated conflict reaching a critical point. Particularly significant is the fact that direct, large-scale military attacks on Iranian soil, previously considered a "red line," have been carried out. Even in confrontations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Iraq in 2003, or North Korea in recent years, the United States had been extremely cautious about direct, preemptive, large-scale attacks on an adversary's homeland. The breaking of this "taboo" signifies a major turning point in the international security order.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that this conflict is occurring within a global context. Amidst complex geopolitical shifts such as the prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict, escalating US-China tensions, and the rise of the Global South, the US-Iran clash is serving as a catalyst accelerating the reorganization of world order beyond a mere bilateral issue. As China and Russia strengthen their ties with Iran, this military conflict also symbolizes the end of the unipolar international order that emerged after the Cold War.
President Trump's statement "destroyed everything" is both a factual military report and a powerful political message. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, it is being presented domestically as an achievement embodying a "strong America." Conversely, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' counter-argument of "continued missile production" stems from the necessity to demonstrate the regime's survival and resistance capabilities both domestically and internationally. The imperative for both leaderships to maintain a narrative of "strength" for their domestic audiences is a structural factor making diplomatic compromise even more difficult.
The delta: In response to President Trump's "destroyed everything" victory declaration, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps immediately retorted with "continued missile production and continued retaliation," making it clear that this conflict has not resulted in a unilateral US victory but has entered a "spiral of conflict" that will become protracted and bogged down. What has fundamentally changed is that both leaderships have constructed narratives of "victory" or "resilience" for their domestic audiences, causing the political space for diplomatic compromise to rapidly disappear.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the News Isn't Saying
President Trump's statement "destroyed everything" should be read less as a report of military facts and more as a "prelude to an exit strategy." Emphasizing an early completion is the inverse of desiring a prolonged conflict, suggesting no intention of escalating to an all-out war with Iran. Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' statement about "continued missile production" is likely more related to internal power struggles within the regime than actual production capacity. With no catastrophic damage to military infrastructure acknowledged, the primary motivation for exaggerated claims of capability is the need to justify the Revolutionary Guard Corps' "raison d'être" domestically. Both sides are speaking based on the logic of domestic politics rather than the actual situation on the battlefield, and herein lies a hidden space for diplomatic compromise.
NOW PATTERN
Spiral of Conflict × Imperial Overstretch × Narrative Hegemony
A "narrative hegemony" struggle, where both the US and Iran compete with stories of "victory" and "resilience," is driving a "spiral of conflict" that escalates tensions, while US military power projection increases the risk of "imperial overstretch," activating a triple structural dynamic.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics—the spiral of conflict, imperial overstretch, and narrative hegemony—form a dangerous interaction that mutually reinforces each other.
First, there is a mechanism by which narrative hegemony accelerates the spiral of conflict. When President Trump declares "destroyed everything," Iran is compelled to prove through action that "this is not the case." Carrying out retaliatory attacks becomes the most direct means of this "proof." And Iran's retaliation means to the Trump administration that "the threat has not yet been eliminated," justifying further military action. A vicious cycle of words and violence is established, where the competition of narratives drives the escalation of actual military actions.
Next, there is a mechanism by which the spiral of conflict accelerates imperial overstretch. Each cycle of escalation demands more military resources, a wider operational scope, and a longer operational period. As long as Iran's retaliation continues, the US military cannot reduce its deployment in the Middle East, leading to a decrease in resources allocated to other strategic priorities (China, Russia). Finite resources, particularly inventories of precision-guided munitions, pilot flight hours, and naval vessel deployment rotations, are rapidly depleted by the spiraling escalation.
Finally, there is a mechanism by which imperial overstretch threatens narrative hegemony. As the costs of military operations become visible and their impact on the domestic economy (inflation, fiscal deficit) becomes apparent, maintaining the narrative of "victory" becomes difficult. As observed in the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, shifts in domestic public opinion fundamentally undermine the persuasiveness of a "victory narrative." However, once the narrative collapses, it becomes impossible to end the conflict with a "victory declaration," making disengagement from the spiral even more difficult.
This triple mutual reinforcement constitutes a dangerous system where escalation proceeds autonomously unless there is external intervention (international mediation, unforeseen circumstances). Historically, such self-reinforcing escalation dynamics have been halted either by the decisive defeat of one party or by the creation of a mutually acceptable "face-saving exit." At present, neither of these conditions has been met.
📚 Patterns of History
2003: President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" Declaration and the Quagmire of the Iraq War
An early "victory declaration" created a disconnect with complex realities, leading to a long-term quagmire.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Achieving military "destruction" is fundamentally different from achieving political objectives. Even if an adversary's military infrastructure is destroyed with overwhelming conventional forces, it does not necessarily guarantee political stability or a change in the adversary's will. In Iraq, the most difficult phase began after the "mission accomplished" declaration.
1980-1988: The Prolonged Iran-Iraq War and War of Attrition
Both sides overconfidently believed they could quickly subdue the other, leading to an eight-year war of attrition.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Iran is a nation that demonstrates astonishing resilience against external attacks. Saddam Hussein of Iraq believed he could subdue Iran in a few weeks, but the result was eight years of devastating war of attrition. Underestimating Iran's strategic depth (land area, population, topography) as a nation is extremely dangerous.
1964-1975: The Spiral of Escalation in the Vietnam War
Optimism that "just a little more military force would win" drove gradual escalation, ultimately leading to withdrawal.
Structural similarities with the current situation: The side with overwhelming military power falls into the trap of gradual escalation by continuously underestimating the adversary's will to resist. At each stage, a narrative of "victory is just around the corner" drives policy, but the adversary wages a protracted war using asymmetric means. Ultimately, changes in domestic public opinion, not military strength, determine the outcome of the war.
1956: The Suez Crisis and British-French Overstretch
Military action in the Middle East led to international isolation and the exposure of national power limits.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Even a militarily "winnable" operation can be strategically "lost" if international political costs and one's own economic and diplomatic limits are not considered. The Suez Crisis exposed the limits of Britain and France as great powers to the world, accelerating the shift in hegemony.
2006: Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (Second Lebanon War)
The assumption of a short war with overwhelming military force was thwarted by the protracted warfare capability of a non-state actor.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Israel assumed it could destroy Hezbollah in a short period, but Hezbollah waged a protracted war using a decentralized command structure and tunnel networks, collapsing Israel's "victory narrative." In asymmetric warfare, infrastructure destruction does not necessarily mean the destruction of an organization's combat capability.
Patterns Revealed by History
The patterns emerging from historical cases are consistent: a cycle where the side with overwhelming military power declares an early "victory," then underestimates the adversary's will to resist and endurance, leading to a prolonged and bogged-down conflict. In all cases—Iraq in 2003, the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, and the Vietnam War—it has been proven that "initial military success with conventional forces" and "the subjugation of the adversary's political will" were challenges of entirely different dimensions.
Regarding Iran in particular, as demonstrated by the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War, its resilience against external attacks is extremely high. The post-revolutionary regime has integrated "resistance to foreign enemies" into the core of its identity, and military pressure often produces the paradoxical effect of strengthening the regime's cohesion. Furthermore, Iran's strategic depth—its land area (approximately 4.4 times that of Japan), population (approximately 88 million), and mountainous terrain—are structural factors that make it significantly difficult to subdue through air strikes alone.
Moreover, as the Suez Crisis and the Vietnam War demonstrate, military "overstretch" carries the risk of undermining the international standing of the involved nation itself. The current large-scale military involvement of the United States in the Middle East, while facing the top priority of strategic competition with China, precisely raises concerns about a repetition of this historical pattern.
🔮 Next Scenarios
Military clashes will continue intermittently for the next 2-3 months but will not escalate into full-scale war. The United States will conduct several additional large-scale attacks but will avoid deploying ground troops. Iran will continue sporadic retaliation through the Revolutionary Guard Corps and proxy forces but will exercise restraint from decisive escalation such as a complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or large-scale attacks on US military facilities.
Oil prices will remain high in the range of $90-$110/barrel, continuing to exert inflationary pressure on the global economy. China and Russia will continue material and intelligence support to Iran covertly, while outwardly calling for a diplomatic resolution. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia will maintain neutrality while attempting to contribute to price stabilization through increased oil production.
In the latter half of 2026, the Trump administration, mindful of the midterm elections, will begin to slow the pace of operations, claiming "sufficient achievements." Iran's capacity for full-scale retaliation will also decline due to economic exhaustion. A complete ceasefire agreement will not be reached, but the situation will transition to a de facto "frozen conflict." Regarding the nuclear issue, the risk remains that Iran will secretly accelerate nuclear weapons development, making a new crisis cycle highly likely within a few years. This "frozen conflict" will not fundamentally resolve the problem but will sow the seeds for the next crisis.
Implications for Investment/Action: Changes in US military attack frequency, scale and targets of Iranian retaliatory attacks, oil price trends, public opinion on Iran policy in midterm election polls, UN Security Council developments
A scenario where an unexpected diplomatic breakthrough is achieved. President Trump shifts from "maximum pressure to maximum deal-making," proposing direct negotiations with Iran, following the precedent of his 2018 summit with North Korea. Iran, facing extensive damage to its military infrastructure and economic exhaustion, also agrees to negotiations, prioritizing regime survival.
In this scenario, China or Oman acts as a mediator, and secret negotiation channels are opened. The negotiation framework would involve Iran accepting limits on its nuclear development in exchange for gradual sanctions relief and guarantees of regime security, reverting to a JCPOA-like structure. President Trump could construct a narrative that "his tough stance brought Iran to the negotiating table," while Iran could claim to have "achieved a dignified agreement."
Oil prices would return to the $70 range, and the Middle East risk premium would decrease. However, for this scenario to materialize, the Supreme Leader would need to suppress opposition from hardliners within Iran (especially parts of the Revolutionary Guard Corps), and there is also the significant hurdle of whether Israel would accept the agreement. If Prime Minister Netanyahu does not accept anything less than Iran's "complete denuclearization," a rift between the US and Israel could emerge. The low probability of this optimistic scenario is due to the need for these multiple difficult conditions to be met simultaneously.
Implications for Investment/Action: Reports of secret diplomatic channels, changes in President Trump's statements regarding a "deal," indications of "conditional dialogue" from Iranian leadership, mediation efforts by third countries (Oman, China, Qatar), Israel's reaction
A scenario where the conflict escalates uncontrollably. Iran carries out a mine blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or a large-scale missile attack on US military bases abroad, resulting in significant US military casualties. In retaliation, the United States significantly expands its attacks on Iranian government agencies and nuclear facilities, entering a de facto state of full-scale war.
If the Strait of Hormuz is even partially blockaded, approximately 20% of global oil supply would be disrupted, and oil prices would surge above $150/barrel. This would be a sufficient shock to push the global economy into recession. Asian economies highly dependent on oil imports, such as Japan, South Korea, and India, would be particularly severely hit.
As a more severe scenario, Iran, cornered, might choose a "breakout" by openly accelerating nuclear weapons development. The transition from 60% enriched uranium to weapons-grade 90% is technically possible in a short period, and the decision to pursue nuclear armament as "the last insurance for regime survival" could be rational. This would signify the complete collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, creating a domino effect that would induce chain reactions of nuclear development by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.
Iran's regional proxy forces would be fully activated, leading to simultaneous conflicts in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain. The entire Middle East would become a battlefield, with massive humanitarian crises and waves of refugees spilling into Europe and neighboring countries. This scenario would be the largest geopolitical crisis of the 2020s, forcing a fundamental reorganization of the international order.
Implications for Investment/Action: Provocative military activities in the Strait of Hormuz, large-scale attacks on US military bases, sharp rise in oil prices (over $120), refusal of IAEA monitoring at Iranian nuclear facilities, large-scale attacks by Hezbollah and Houthis, signs of transition to wartime footing in the US
Key Triggers to Watch
- Iranian military actions in the Strait of Hormuz (mine-laying, attacks on merchant vessels): April-June 2026
- Publication of IAEA special report on Iran's nuclear development status: April-May 2026
- Signals of a shift in the Trump administration's Iran policy ahead of the US midterm elections (November 2026): July-September 2026
- Clarification of military support to Iran by China or Russia (e.g., provision of air defense systems): April-August 2026
- Large-scale anti-regime demonstrations or surfacing of internal power struggles within Iran: April-December 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: IAEA Board of Governors June 2026 Regular Meeting — A report on the damage assessment of Iran's nuclear materials and facilities and the status of enrichment activities will determine the direction of future escalation/de-escalation.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Evolution of US-Iran Military Clash — The next milestone is the scale of Iran's retaliatory attacks at the end of April 2026 and the level of US response to them.
>How do you read this? Participate in Prediction →
