We asked seven leading AI models to analyze the most plausible scenario of how the conflict between Israel and Iran will unfold.

With direct military confrontation ongoing between Israel and Iran, we asked seven AI models to analyze potential outcomes using their web search functionalities, activating their deep reasoning capabilities and acting as experts in geopolitics, global war, and conflicts in the Middle East.

The consensus

Six of the seven models predicted ongoing intermittent war, rather than a diplomatic breakthrough or World War III. Only ChatGPT adopted a John Lennon mode and predicted a quick negotiated resolution. The models agreed on the main limiting factors: the catastrophic consequences of total war, U.S. reluctance for direct involvement, and rational survival calculations from both sides.

Common alerts included risks of miscalculation, urgency in the nuclear timeline, and potential for support groups to trigger unwanted escalation. Timeline forecasts varied from three to 24 months of sustained low-intensity conflict.

As Manus, one of the first "agentic" AI systems, summarized: "High tensions, but manageable: rhetoric will often be belligerent, but actions will remain below the threshold of open large-scale war." AI consensus suggests that the shadow war will continue in broad daylight — more violent than before, but still governed by mutual deterrence and survival instincts.

See what each model predicted, in more detail:

Google Gemini

Most likely outcome: prolonged and controlled escalation.

Timeline: 12-24 months

Main insight: The conflict will remain volatile and recalibrated with each attack; Israel will continue the strategy of 'mowing the grass' with repeated tactical strikes.

Warning: Red lines will erode over time, increasing the risk of unintended escalation.

Gemini produced the most comprehensive assessment, organizing its analysis into detailed scenarios with broad historical context. The model identified three main trajectories with careful probability assessments.

Regarding the most probable scenario — "prolonged and controlled escalation" — Gemini stated: "The 'control' in this scenario is relative and subject to constant recalibrations by both sides, making the situation volatile and unpredictable. Each escalation cycle in this scenario will further test the red lines and potentially erode existing restrictions."

The model referenced the Israeli doctrine of "mowing the grass," describing periodic military operations aimed at neutralizing threats with small but continuous strikes. Gemini projected that this pattern would continue for 12 to 24 months, warning that "the cumulative effect of repeated strikes and retaliations may also lead to the erosion of previously respected red lines."

Although the scenario of 'prolonged and controlled escalation' is considered the most likely, it is crucial to recognize that this is not a stable or benign situation. It entails a persistent state of high tension, characterized by periodic military strikes, covert operations, cyber warfare, and proxy engagements," it warned.

Claude Anthropic

Most likely outcome: sustained military campaign.

Probability: 50-60%

Main insight: Iran's need to retaliate + Israel's opportunity for decisive action = prolonged combat.

Warning: Iran's short escape window (~25 days) may force strategic miscalculations or preemptive attacks.

Claude approached the crisis more as a military analyst than as a diplomat, assigning specific probabilities and identifying concrete indicators for each scenario. The model assigned a probability of 50-60% to the "sustained military campaign."

"Iran cannot accept the degradation of its nuclear program without a response, while Israel views the current window as ideal for decisive action," Claude stated. The model highlighted a critical factor: "Iran's technical capability to arm itself quickly creates potential for a sudden strategic shift that could deter further Israeli actions or provoke preemptive escalation."

Claude's analysis included specific watch signals to monitor, from attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz to acceleration of uranium enrichment. The model noted that Iran's "25-day escape capability" provided both "escalation leverage and urgency for decisive action."

OpenAI ChatGPT

Most likely outcome: diplomatic resolution.

Probability: High

Main perception: Iran's restrained retaliation and appeal to the UN indicate a preference for diplomacy.

Prediction: Quiet negotiations via Oman or Qatar; possible updated nuclear agreement within weeks.

ChatGPT presented the most optimistic assessment, classifying diplomatic resolution as "highly likely," despite acknowledging severe military risks. The model outlined how escalation could unfold but consistently returned to the possibilities of negotiation.

"Tehran's initial retaliation was symbolically fierce but ultimately limited in its effect, suggesting a reluctance to escalate to a point of no return. The fact that Iran turned to the UN and is engaging diplomatically (even if only to condemn Israel) shows that it has not closed the door to political pathways," ChatGPT noted. The model predicted "quiet negotiations, possibly mediated by Oman or Qatar, in which Iran would agree to strict limitations on its nuclear program."

ChatGPT cited President Trump's statement that "it's not too late" for an agreement, interpreting this as evidence that "Washington is ready to mediate such an agreement rather than seek the destruction of the regime." The model predicted a resolution within weeks through "an agreement — perhaps an updated nuclear agreement."

xAI Grok

Most likely outcome: limited conflict with periodic bursts.

Timeline: 3-6 months

Main insight: Historical precedent favors the prevention of large-scale war; rational deterrence prevails.

Warning: Wildcards include high-casualty attacks or new actors (e.g., Gulf states or Russia) entering the fray.

Grok's search mode appears to have performed degraded in recent weeks. We activated the "Deeper Search," which supposedly would use more resources for a more comprehensive report. However, the model provided an extremely concise analysis, focusing on historical patterns and practical indicators. The model classified "limited conflict" as high probability, based on precedents.

"Israel and Iran have engaged in proxy conflicts and limited direct attacks for decades, avoiding large-scale war due to mutual deterrence and international pressures," Grok noted. The model projected 3 to 6 months of "periodic bursts of aerial attacks, missile strikes, or proxy engagements."

Grok identified specific unforeseen events, including "a successful Iranian missile attack causing significant Israeli casualties could lead to a disproportionate response" and the potential "increased support from Gulf states or Russia." The model emphasized that "both Israel and Iran act rationally, prioritizing survival over ideological goals."

Manus

Most likely outcome: controlled escalation and hidden warfare.

Probability: Medium-High

Timeline: 12-24 months

Main insight: The pattern of targeted Israeli attacks and Iran's indirect response will continue.

Emphasis: Indirect communication channels help avoid catastrophic misunderstandings.

Manus, one of the first agentic models, was a surprise. Not only did it execute a comprehensive research report, it also managed to generate a website to facilitate understanding, allowing us to track the research process in real time.

As an expert, Manus tried to be more judicious in his assessment of the dynamics of conflicts in the Middle East, classifying "controlled escalation and intensified parallel warfare" as medium-high probability over 12 to 24 months.

"This scenario reflects the historical pattern of confrontation between Israel and Iran, where both actors seek to inflict damage and deter each other without triggering a total war that neither can afford," Manus explained. The model predicted that Israel "would continue to conduct covert operations and selective airstrikes," while Iran would respond "with a combination of missiles and drones, and through its proxies."

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

Deepseek

Most likely outcome: a prolonged and secret conflict between Israel and Iran.

Probability: 60%

Timeline: short term (0-3 months) to medium term (4-12 months)

Main perception: Iran has strategic limitations and is unlikely to engage in a direct war.

Emphasis or warning: Cyberwarfare and proxy actions will intensify without direct U.S. military involvement.

China's DeepSeek does not have a search mode, but we combined its web search with reasoning capabilities. The result was a data-driven analysis, assigning a 60% probability of "prolonged secret conflict."

The timeline included granular forecasts: "Short term (0 to 3 months): Iranian terrorist attacks in Europe; Israeli attacks on missile factories. Medium term (4 to 12 months): cyber warfare intensifies; IAEA confirms interruption of Iranian uranium enrichment."

DeepSeek noted constraints, including that "Iran lacks conventional capabilities for direct war (outdated air force; weakened proxies)" and "the U.S. avoids ground involvement; focuses on force protection."