Iran and Israel spent 2026 trading direct strikes for the first time in the open. Iran holds no nuclear weapons in this model — so the nuclear question runs the other way: an Iranian strike risks pulling in Israel’s undeclared arsenal and the wider region. The simulation shows how a conventional opening turns nuclear, and who answers the call.
Nuclear weapons are used, but the exchange stays regional or tactical rather than becoming a full strategic war. The taboo is broken and thousands to millions die — the world steps to the brink and pulls back.
Each run starts the same way — Iran launches a first strike on Israel — and then the escalation engine plays the alliance cascade forward, decision by decision. Because retaliation, alliance loyalty and doctrine are probabilistic, the 500 runs don’t all end the same way:
Estimated human cost: 4.7 million (typical run: 3.4 million–7.8 million).
Modeling note: these pages show the engine’s projected escalation, assuming launched weapons reach their targets. The live 3D simulation additionally rolls probabilistic missile-defense interception, so an individual run there may be less severe. Casualty figures are first-order estimates from capital-population and arsenal data — a floor, not a ceiling.
What each side brings to the exchange, from the simulator’s arsenal data (SIPRI/FAS-derived estimates):
| Metric | Iran | Israel |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclear warheads | — | 90 |
| Avg. warhead yield | — | 200 kt |
| Delivery legs (triad) | — | 2 |
| Automated "Dead Hand" | No | No |
| Population | 84.0 million | 9.0 million |
A strike is never just between two countries. These are the nations the model most reliably pulls into the Iran–Israel war (share of runs in which each is drawn in):