How Will the Israel-Iran Conflict End? Here’s What AI Models Predict

With a direct military conflict, which is now underway between Israel and Iran, we have asked seven AI models to analyze the potential outcomes using their web searches, activating their deep reasoning capabilities and acting as experts on geopolitics, global warfare and conflicts in the Middle East.

Consensus

Six of the seven models envisaged a continuation, interrupted warfare, not a diplomatic breakthrough or III. World War II. Only Chatgpt switched to John Lennon mode and predicted a quick negotiating solution. The models agreed on the key limiting factors: the catastrophic consequences of the full war, the reluctance of American direct involvement and rational calculations of the survival of both sides.

The usual warnings included the risks of the wrong accounts, the urgency of the nuclear temporal strip, and the potential for proxy groups to trigger unwanted escalation. Time lanes predictions ranged from three to 24 months of sustainable low intensity conflict.

As Manus, one of the first “agent” AI systems summarized: “Increased but controlling tension: rhetoric will often be belligerent, but the actions will remain below a large -scale open war.” The consensus AI suggests that the shadow war will continue in daylight – more violent than before, but they are still managing the distraction and survival instincts.

Here’s what each model predicted in more detail:

Google twins

• The most likely outcome: Long -term, controlled escalation.
• Time frame: 12–24 months
• Key insight: Conflict will remain unstable and re -calibrated with every strike; Israel will continue to “mow the grass” strategy of repeated tactical strikes.
• Warning: Red lines will eroady over time, increasing the risk of unintentional escalation.

The twins produced the most comprehensive assessment, organizing its analysis into detailed scenarios with an extensive historical context. The model identified three primary paths with careful probability estimates.

For her biggest likelihood-“long-lasting, controlled escalation” -gemini said: “” Control “in this scenario is relative and susceptible to constant calibration on both sides, making the situation volatile and unpredictable. Each escalation cycle within this scenario will further test the red lines and potentially renew.

The model called the Israeli grass mowing doctrine, describing periodic military operations designed to degrade threats to small but continuous attacks. Gemini projects that this pattern will continue for 12-24 months, warning that “the cumulative effect of repeated blows and retaliation can also lead to erosion of previously appreciated red lines.”

“Although most likely considered” long -term, controlled escalation “, it is crucial to recognize that it is not a stable or benevolent condition. Implies a permanent state of high tension, characterized by periodic military attacks, hidden operations, cyber wars and proxy engagement

Anthropic Claud

• The most likely outcome: Military campaign held.
• Probability: 50-60%
• Key insight: Iranian need to take revenge + Israeli opportunity for a decisive action = expanded fight.
• Warning: Iranian short breakthrough time (~ 25 days) could force a strategic error or preventative strikes.

Claude approached the crisis more like a military analyst than a diplomat, awarding some likelihood and identifying specific indicators for each scenario. The model gave a “sustainable military campaign” probability rating of 50 to 60%.

“Iran cannot accept the degradation of the nuclear program unanswered, while Israel looks at the current window as optimal for decisive actions,” Claude said. The model emphasized the critical factor: “The technical capacity of Iranian abilities for a quick weapon creates the potential for a sudden strategic shift that could either distract Israeli action or cause a preventive escalation.”

Claude’s analysis included specific warning signs of supervision, from attempting to close hormus to acceleration of uranium enrichment. The model noted that the Iranian “25-day ability to pierce” also provided “escalator influence and urgency for decisive action”.

OPENAI CHATGPT

• The most likely outcome: Diplomatic resolution.
• Probability: High
• Key insight: Iran is a restrained retaliation and an appeal to the UN indicates the advantage of diplomacy.
• Prediction: Quiet negotiations through Oman or Qatar; Possible updated nuclear agreement within a few weeks.

Chatgpt has provided the most optimistic estimate, evaluating diplomatic resolution as a “high likelihood” despite recognition of severe military risks. The model pointed out that escalation could take place, but it consistently returns to negotiating capabilities.

“The initial retaliation of Teheran was symbolically fierce, but in the end limited in force, suggesting reluctance to escalate to the point of no return. The fact that Iran resorted to the UN -II that he diplomatically hired (even condemned by Israel) shows that he did not suffocate the door on political paths,” Chatgpt. The model predicted “quiet negotiations that may have mediated Oman or Qatar, where Iran agrees to strict limitations in his nuclear program.”

Chatgpt quoted President Trump’s statement that “not too late” for an agreement, interpreting it as proof that “Washington is ready to seek such a settlement, not to follow the destruction of the regime.” The model predicted a resolution within a few weeks through “compromise – perhaps updated nuclear agreement”.

“Ai

• The most likely outcome: Limited conflict with periodic flashes.
• Time frame: 3-6 months
• Key insight: Historical precedent favors the avoidance of war on full proportion; Rational distraction is dominated by.
• Warning: Wildcards include high kasul strikes or new actors (eg bay states or Russia) entering the conflict.

The ceremony of the research seems to have degraded the performance of the last weeks. We have activated “deeper search”, which should use more resources for more extensive report. However, the model provided a super summary analysis focused on historical patterns and practical indicators. The model rated “limited conflict” as a high probability based on precedent.

“Israel and Iran have been dealing with proxy clashes and limited direct strikes for decades, avoiding the war as a whole because of interdependence and international pressures,” Grok noted. The model projected 3-6 months of “periodic flashes of air attacks, rocket attacks or proxy engagement”.

Grok identified specific wild cards, including “a successful Iranian missile strike that causes significant Israeli victims, it could stimulate an disproportionate response”, and a potential “bay state or Russia escalating support.” The model emphasized that “both Israel and Iran are rationally acting, priority survival over ideological goals.”

Manus

• The most likely outcome: Controlled escalation and shadow war.
• Probability: Medium – high
• Time frame: 12–24 months
• Key insight: The pattern of targeted Israeli strikes and Iranian proxy response will continue.
• Accent: Indirect communication channels help avoid catastrophic misunderstandings.

Manus, one of the first agent models, was a surprise. Not only did he perform a complete research report, but he managed to generate a website for easier understanding and let us watch in real time in the midst of the research process.

As an expert, Manus tried to be tinted in his estimation of the Dynamics of the Middle East Conflict, the “controlled escalation and intensified shade war” as a medium likelihood for 12-24 months.

“This scenario reflects the historical pattern of the conflict between Israel and Iran, where both actors seek to harm and distract each other without launching a versatile war that neither can afford,” Manus explained. The model predicted that Israel “would continue to carry out hidden operations and selective air attacks,” while Iran would respond “with” a combination of rockets and drones and through its proxy “.

Manus emphasized communication channels: “Although there is no direct dialogue, it is assumed that indirect channels (through third countries or intelligence) allow both parties to communicate” red lines “and avoid catastrophic misunderstandings.”

Deepseek

• The most likely outcome: an extended, concealed conflict between Israel and Iran.
• Probability: 60%
• Time frame: short -term (0-3 months) to medium -sized (4–12 months)
• Key Insight: Iran is strategically limited and is unlikely to be involved in direct war.
• Emphasis or warning: Cyber ​​-Rawarfare and Proxy actions will appear without a direct American military involvement.

Chinese Deepseek does not have a way of exploring, but we combined his web search with reasoning options. The result was a severe analysis, which “long -term concealed conflict” assigned the likelihood of 60%.

The time line included detailed predictions: “Short-term (0-3 months): Iranian terrorist attacks in Europe; Israeli hits on a rocket factory. Medium-term (4-12 months): Cyberwar escalates; IAEA confirms the Iranian stop of Uranus enrichment.”

Deepseek noticed restrictions, including “Iran lacks a conventional ability for direct war (Air Forcean; Intermediaries weakened)” and “now avoid involvement in the country; they are focused on the protection of force.”