U.S.–Israel ‘Plan B’ Emerges as Iran Endures

Efforts to swiftly defeat Iran in the ongoing Middle East conflict have faltered, prompting the United States and Israel to adopt a more extensive contingency strategy, often referred to as “Plan B.” Analysts say the war, initially envisioned as a decisive strike to incapacitate Iran’s leadership and military command, has shifted to a protracted campaign of strategic pressure and infrastructure targeting.

Leadership and Early Objectives

While much media coverage suggests former President Donald Trump is orchestrating the campaign, in reality, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the central figure directing military operations on the ground. The original plan aimed to neutralise Iran’s Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) high command, thereby destabilising the government and collapsing the Islamic regime. Intelligence assessments, however, indicate that this effort has largely failed.

Iranian leadership remains intact under the new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, and contingency plans ensure continuity even if senior officials are targeted. This resilience has forced the U.S.–Israel coalition to pivot to Plan B, which consists of two primary elements.

Plan B Components

Support for Internal Opposition
A relatively minor element of Plan B involves encouraging unrest among minority groups such as the Kurds and Baloch, aiming to initiate internal destabilisation. Analysts caution, however, that these populations are unlikely to fully trust Israel or the U.S., limiting the effectiveness of this strategy.

Dahiyah Principle – Targeting Civilian Infrastructure
The more significant component draws on Israel’s traditional military doctrine, known as the Dahiyah Principle: if rebellion cannot be induced or leadership captured, victory is sought through relentless strikes on civilian and infrastructural targets. This strategy was first applied in southern Beirut against Hezbollah in 2006 and later in Gaza against Hamas, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties and widespread destruction, yet leaving the organisations resilient.

In Iran, U.S. and Israeli forces have increasingly applied this principle, with escalating strikes on infrastructure, energy facilities, and military-adjacent assets. Pentagon officials have warned that operations targeting Iran’s internal capabilities may intensify, potentially inflicting substantial long-term damage on urban and industrial sectors.

Potential Regional and Global Consequences

Experts warn that extended application of Plan B could provoke retaliation from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including attacks on oil and gas facilities in the Gulf states such as UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Analysts note that such disruptions could trigger a global economic shock comparable to the 1973–74 OPEC oil embargo, with far-reaching consequences for energy markets worldwide.

Current Assessment

Although the conflict continues to escalate, there are signs that some Israeli and U.S. decision-makers are reconsidering the extent and duration of operations. While former President Trump has claimed near-total victory, intelligence and military observations suggest that a protracted engagement may be inevitable. Analysts remain cautiously optimistic that strategic restraint and negotiation channels could yet moderate the worst effects, but warn that the immediate future likely holds weeks or months of intensified conflict.

Plan B underscores the challenges facing the U.S.–Israel coalition: achieving meaningful leverage over Iran without provoking uncontrollable regional escalation, all while contending with a resilient and adaptive Iranian leadership capable of withstanding significant military pressure.