Published 2026-06-14 | Version v1.0
Policy BriefOpenPublished

Three Conflicts Inside One War

The Fragmentation of the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict into U.S.–Iran, Iran–Israel, and U.S.–Israel Tracks

Description

This policy brief argues that the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict is no longer best understood as a single integrated war moving toward a single settlement. It analyzes the conflict as three connected but differentiated tracks: U.S.–Iran termination, Iran–Israel deterrence, and U.S.–Israel alliance management. The brief concludes that the most plausible outcome is controlled fragmentation, in which a U.S.–Iran memorandum may reduce direct escalation while unresolved deterrence, proxy, maritime, nuclear, and alliance-management pressures continue through separate but linked channels.

Abstract

This policy brief argues that the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict is no longer best understood as a single integrated war moving toward a single settlement. Instead, it is fragmenting into three connected but differentiated tracks: U.S.–Iran termination, Iran–Israel deterrence, and U.S.–Israel alliance management. The U.S.–Iran track is moving toward bargaining, sequencing, and procedural de-escalation; the Iran–Israel track remains focused on deterrence, retaliation, and proxy control; and the U.S.–Israel track increasingly involves alliance management, conditionality, and political synchronization. The brief argues that a U.S.–Iran memorandum may reduce direct military escalation without resolving the broader conflict system. Unresolved leverage may migrate into nuclear talks, maritime rules, proxy fronts, U.S.–Israel consultations, and competing domestic narratives. The most plausible outcome is therefore controlled fragmentation: direct U.S.–Iran de-escalation, bounded Iran–Israel competition, conditional U.S.–Israel synchronization, and continued monitoring of recovery competition after any ceasefire.

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

Keywords

  • U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict
  • Three Conflicts Inside One War
  • triangular conflict decomposition
  • controlled fragmentation
  • U.S.–Iran termination
  • Iran–Israel deterrence
  • U.S.–Israel alliance management
  • war termination
  • procedural de-escalation
  • memorandum of understanding
  • ceasefire
  • nuclear sequencing
  • sanctions relief
  • Hormuz
  • maritime stabilization
  • proxy warfare
  • Hezbollah
  • Israel
  • Iran
  • United States
  • alliance conditionalization
  • deterrence restoration
  • escalation management
  • Middle East security
  • strategic competition
  • EPINOVA

Subjects

  • International relations
  • Strategic studies
  • Middle East security
  • Conflict analysis
  • War termination
  • Alliance politics
  • Deterrence
  • Proxy warfare
  • Maritime security
  • Nuclear negotiations
  • Political risk
  • Public policy

Recommended citation

Wu, Shaoyuan (2026), Three Conflicts Inside One War: The Fragmentation of the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict into U.S.–Iran, Iran–Israel, and U.S.–Israel Tracks, Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–56, Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.056.

APA citation

Wu, S. (2026). Three conflicts inside one war: The fragmentation of the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict into U.S.–Iran, Iran–Israel, and U.S.–Israel tracks. EPINOVA Policy Brief Series, EPINOVA-PB-2026-056. Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.056.

Alternate identifiers

SchemeIdentifierDescription
URLhttps://epinova.org/policy-brief-1Official EPINOVA publication page
EPINOVA policy brief numberEPINOVA–2026–PB–56Policy brief number printed in the PDF
File nameThree Conflicts Inside One War The Fragmentation of the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict into U.S.–Iran, Iran–Israel, and U.S.–Israel Tracks.pdfSource PDF file name
Short titleThree Conflicts Inside One WarShort form of the policy brief title
Analytical conceptTriangular Conflict DecompositionCore analytical model developed in the policy brief
Analytical conceptControlled FragmentationCentral outcome pattern identified in the policy brief

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). The first ten days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict: From war termination to systemic realignmentPolicy briefReferenced for Phase II systemic realignment and resource-chain / alliance-management analysis
ReferencesWu, S. (2026). External strategic nodes under pressure: Lebanon, Israel, and the break thresholds of strategic dependencyPolicy briefReferenced for external strategic node dependency, Hezbollah, Israel, and alliance conditionalization analysis
ReferencesReuters reporting on U.S.–Iran deal negotiations and Lebanon / Israel developmentsNews analysisReferenced for reported memorandum terms, Israeli operations, Hezbollah response, and Netanyahu political pressure

References

  1. Council on Foreign Relations. (2026, June 13). Is a U.S.-Iran deal within reach? Six key issues that could shape a ceasefire. https://www.cfr.org/articles/is-a-u-s-iran-deal-within-reach-six-key-issues-that-could-shape-a-ceasefire
  2. Reuters. (2026a, June 1). Israel’s Netanyahu orders attacks in Beirut’s southern suburbs. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-ordered-military-attack-targets-beirut-southern-suburbs-2026-06-01/
  3. Reuters. (2026b, June 2). Israel strikes south Lebanon after stepping back from Beirut attack. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-south-lebanon-after-holding-off-beirut-attack-2026-06-02/
  4. Reuters. (2026c, June 4). Hezbollah rejects ceasefire plan declared in Washington as Israel says Lebanon operations will continue. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-continue-operations-lebanon-now-despite-ceasefire-defence-minister-says-2026-06-04/
  5. Reuters. (2026d, June 4). Netanyahu faces plunging support in north Israel as voters demand tougher Lebanon stance. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-faces-plunging-support-north-israel-voters-demand-tougher-lebanon-2026-06-04/
  6. Reuters. (2026e, June 12). U.S., Iran signal peace deal near as Tehran claims victory. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iran-war-deal-close-strait-hormuz-tensions-linger-2026-06-12/
  7. Reuters. (2026f, June 14). Iran says draft U.S. deal includes oil sanctions waiver, nuclear limits and asset release. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-says-draft-us-deal-includes-oil-sanctions-waiver-nuclear-limits-asset-2026-06-14/
  8. Reuters. (2026g, June 14). U.S. and Iran inch closer to deal, Trump says Sunday but timing is unclear. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-inch-closer-deal-timing-remains-unclear-2026-06-14/
  9. The Guardian. (2026a, May 22). Qatar sends mediators to Tehran in sign talks to reopen Strait of Hormuz are reaching climax. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/22/uranium-strait-of-hormuz-us-iran-war-talks-pakistan
  10. The Guardian. (2026b, June 14). Middle East crisis live: Iran says Israeli attack on Beirut shows lack of U.S. willingness after Trump says peace deal will be signed today. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jun/14/iran-us-middle-east-crisis-donald-trump-peace-deal-strait-hormuz-open-pakistan-latest-news-updates
  11. Wu, S. (2026a). Divergent war aims: The U.S., Israel, and the strategic logic of divergence in the Iran conflict (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–17). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19223653
  12. Wu, S. (2026b). Ceasefire under conditions of non-enforcement: Time arbitrage, negotiation dynamics, and controlled de-escalation in the U.S.–Iran conflict with Israeli structural constraints (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–25). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19444571
  13. Wu, S. (2026c). Ceasefire as recovery competition: Rearmament, external support, and strategic regeneration in a non-enforcement environment (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–26). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19464642
  14. Wu, S. (2026d). Bargaining under systemic pressure: U.S. objective compression, Iranian leverage institutionalization, and the reconfiguration of negotiating goals in the 85-day conflict (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–51). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.051
  15. Wu, S. (2026e). External strategic nodes under pressure: Lebanon, Israel, and the break thresholds of strategic dependency (EPINOVA 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
  16. Wu, S. (2026f). The first ten days of Phase II in the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict: From war termination to systemic realignment (EPINOVA 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
  17. Wu, S. (2026g). Systemic warfare in the networked age: Operational systems, information competition, and cumulative pressure (EPINOVA Working Paper No. EPINOVA–WP–F–2026–07). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19078936