Published 2026-06-12 | Version v1.0
Policy BriefOpenPublished

The First Ten Days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict

From War Termination to Systemic Realignment

Description

This policy brief examines the first ten analytical days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict. It argues that the conflict is shifting from escalation accumulation toward systemic realignment, exposing the costs of U.S. prioritization of Israel, widening U.S.–Israel desynchronization, Iran’s more calibrated Phase II behavior, the strategic role of the Caspian–Persian Gulf linkage, and the emergence of broader resource-chain transmission beyond oil markets.

Abstract

This policy brief examines the first ten analytical days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict. It argues that the conflict is shifting from escalation accumulation toward systemic realignment. Phase I forced the United States to prioritize Israel in practical crisis-management terms, while Phase II exposes the costs of that prioritization across Ukraine support, European confidence, air-defense allocation, and Indo-Pacific deterrence signaling. The brief also analyzes growing U.S.–Israel desynchronization, the Netanyahu constraint, Iran’s more calibrated Phase II behavior, and the strategic role of the Caspian–Persian Gulf linkage. It further argues that the conflict is no longer only an oil-market shock, but a wider resource-chain transmission problem involving sulfur, fertilizer, LNG, petrochemicals, metals, battery inputs, and food-system exposure. The brief concludes that Phase II should be understood not simply as a path from war to peace, but as a test of whether escalation’s consequences can still be organized across regional, Eurasian, and global systems.

Files

PDF preview
PDF preview

Mobile browsers may not display embedded PDF previews reliably. Open the PDF directly for the best reading experience.

Open PDF Download PDF
Files
NameType
The First Ten Days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict From War Termination to Systemic Realignment.pdf
Full-text PDF of the policy brief		application/pdfDownload

Keywords

  • U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict
  • Phase II
  • war termination
  • systemic realignment
  • escalation management
  • U.S.–Israel desynchronization
  • Netanyahu constraint
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • United States
  • Caspian–Persian Gulf linkage
  • Hormuz
  • resource-chain transmission
  • fertilizer security
  • sulfur
  • LNG
  • petrochemicals
  • battery materials
  • food security
  • El Niño
  • Eurasian corridors
  • Russia
  • China
  • alliance management
  • strategic competition
  • EPINOVA

Subjects

  • International relations
  • Strategic studies
  • Middle East security
  • Conflict analysis
  • Alliance politics
  • War termination
  • Political risk
  • Energy security
  • Food security
  • Global political economy
  • Maritime security
  • Public policy

Recommended citation

Wu, Shaoyuan (2026), The First Ten Days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict: From War Termination to Systemic Realignment, Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–55, Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.055.

APA citation

Wu, S. (2026). The first ten days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict: From war termination to systemic realignment. EPINOVA Policy Brief Series, EPINOVA-PB-2026-055. Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.055.

Alternate identifiers

SchemeIdentifierDescription
URLhttps://epinova.org/policy-brief-1Official EPINOVA publication page
EPINOVA policy brief numberEPINOVA–2026–PB–55Policy brief number printed in the PDF
File nameThe First Ten Days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict From War Termination to Systemic Realignment.pdfSource PDF file name
Short titleThe First Ten Days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran ConflictShort form of the policy brief title

Related works

RelationIdentifierTypeDescription
IsPartOfhttps://epinova.org/policy-brief-1Publication seriesEPINOVA Policy Brief Series
IsSupplementedByhttps://github.com/EPINOVALLC/EPINOVA-ResearchRepositorySupplementary repository and structural archive
ReferencesWu, S. (2026). External strategic nodes under pressure: Lebanon, Israel, and the break thresholds of strategic dependencyPolicy briefReferenced for external strategic node dependency, break thresholds, and U.S.–Israel / Iran–Lebanon node analysis
ReferencesInternational Energy Agency materials on Middle East conflict and global energy marketsReport and topic pageReferenced for energy-market disruption and Middle East energy-security context
ReferencesWorld Bank materials on commodity markets and food securityReport and updateReferenced for commodity, fertilizer, food-security, and resource-chain risk context

References

  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025, September 16). Industrial roadblocks: Producing at scale and adopting new technologies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-14-industrial-roadblocks-producing-scale-and-adopting-new-technologies
  2. Congressional Research Service. (2024, September 16). Defense production for Ukraine: Background and issues for Congress (R48182). https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48182.html
  3. Council on Foreign Relations. (2025, October 7). U.S. aid to Israel in four charts. https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
  4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2026, April 3). FAO Food Price Index rises in March as Near East conflict raises energy costs. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/fao-food-price-index-rises-in-march-as-near-east-conflict-raises-energy-costs/en
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2026). FAO Food Price Index. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en
  6. International Energy Agency. (2026, May 28). Impacts of Middle East conflict set to reshape energy investment plans as disruptions put focus on security. https://www.iea.org/news/impacts-of-middle-east-conflict-set-to-reshape-energy-investment-plans-as-disruptions-put-focus-on-security
  7. International Energy Agency. (2026). The Middle East and global energy markets. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/topics/the-middle-east-and-global-energy-markets
  8. International Research Institute for Climate and Society. (2026). ENSO forecast. Columbia Climate School. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
  9. National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Climate Prediction Center. (2026, May 14). ENSO diagnostic discussion. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
  10. Office of Foreign Assets Control. (2025, April 16). Guidance for shipping and maritime stakeholders on detecting and mitigating Iranian oil sanctions evasion. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/iran-sanctions
  11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2023). Realising the potential of the Middle Corridor. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/realising-the-potential-of-the-middle-corridor_c458041c/635ad854-en.pdf
  12. U.S. Department of State. (2024, September 10). New Iran and Russia sanctions designations. https://2021-2025.state.gov/new-iran-and-russia-sanctions-designations/
  13. U.S. Department of State. (2025, January). U.S. security cooperation with Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine
  14. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, June 16). Amid regional conflict, the Strait of Hormuz remains critical to oil and LNG trade. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65504
  15. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025). World oil transit chokepoints. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/special-topics/world_oil_transit_Chokepoints
  16. U.S. Geological Survey. (1999). Fertilizers: Sustaining global food supplies (Fact Sheet FS-155-99). https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs155-99/fs155-99.html
  17. Ukraine Oversight. (2026). Security assistance. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/Security-Assistance/
  18. World Bank. (2023). Middle trade and transport corridor: Policies and investments to triple freight volumes and halve travel time by 2030. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/6248f697aed4be0f770d319dcaa4ca52-0080062023/original/Middle-Trade-and-Transport-Corridor-World-Bank-FINAL.pdf
  19. World Bank. (2026, April 28). Middle East war to spark biggest energy price surge in years; fertilizer costs to rise sharply. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2026/04/28/commodity-markets-outlook-april-2026-press-release
  20. World Bank. (2026, June 1). Food security update. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update
  21. World Meteorological Organization. (2026, April 24). Likelihood increases of El Niño. https://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-likelihood-increases-of-el-nino
  22. World Meteorological Organization. (2026, June 2). WMO: Prepare for El Niño. https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-prepare-el-nino
  23. Wu, S. (2026). External strategic nodes under pressure: Lebanon, Israel, and the break thresholds of strategic dependency (Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–54). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.054