Experts have offered differing assessments of the objectives behind Iran’s latest escalation, which extended to Damietta in Egypt. They agreed, however, that the region has entered an exceptionally sensitive phase that now extends beyond the direct confrontation between the United States and Iran.
Some analysts argue that Tehran is seeking to widen the pressure campaign by targeting economic interests and critical infrastructure in neighbouring states, thereby raising the cost of confrontation for Washington. Others believe Iran is pursuing a policy of “calculated risk” to force the United States back to the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, Gulf and other Arab states remain committed to mediation and diplomacy, fearing that the region could slide into a broader war whose economic and security consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East.
Gulf States Maintain Their Position
Dr Abdullah Bandar Al-Otaibi, Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs at Qatar University, said the Gulf position had not changed despite the escalating developments.
He noted that the latest Gulf-Jordanian statement rejected attacks on regional states attempting to distance themselves from the conflict, while also affirming their right to defend their security and sovereignty.
Al-Otaibi said Iran’s strategy centres on targeting the energy sector as the most effective point of pressure. He referred to previous attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq facilities, followed by the inclusion of Gulf energy installations in the target bank during the current war, including the attack on Ras Laffan in Qatar.
He argued that striking energy facilities and shipping routes was intended to disrupt regional alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz, particularly the Red Sea and Saudi ports.
In his assessment, Tehran is seeking to impose dominance over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz more than it is pursuing a direct confrontation with Israel. He said the widening scope of attacks reduces pressure on Israel while shifting the greater burden onto the United States and its regional allies.
Returning Iran to the Negotiating Table
Paul Davis, a former intelligence analyst at the US Department of Defence, said President Donald Trump’s administration still viewed military action as a means of bringing Iran back to the negotiating table.
He said the next phase could involve intensified attacks against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, drone facilities and broader military infrastructure, with the aim of increasing pressure on Tehran and pushing it towards a political settlement.
Davis added that Washington believes Iran’s responses rely on targeting civilian infrastructure and neighbouring countries in an attempt to pressure those states into urging the US administration to halt military operations.
He nevertheless ruled out the likelihood that such measures would be sufficient to change the US position before Iran demonstrated a willingness to negotiate.
Dr Atefeh Taghiyani, Professor of Political Science at the University of Tehran, presented a contrasting account.
She said the Iranian leadership considers the United States to be the party that initiated the war and expanded it through military operations, economic pressure and a naval blockade. According to her, Iran shifted its strategy from defence to offence in order to increase pressure on Washington.
Taghiyani said the Iranian leadership believes the United States will not risk entering a comprehensive war and that military action will not be capable of resolving the crisis.
Tehran is therefore attempting to demonstrate its readiness to escalate in order to force Washington to reconsider its calculations and accept a political solution.
Israeli Influence on Washington
Walid Habbas, a researcher specialising in Israeli affairs, said the US escalation could not be separated from Israel’s continuing influence within Washington’s decision-making circles.
He explained that this influence extends beyond political visits and reflects a long-term strategic interdependence between the two countries.
Habbas said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had softened his rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government during his latest visit to Washington.
Instead, he focused on a long-term strategy aimed at economically weakening Iran and exhausting its scientific and military capabilities through the targeting of scientists and the tightening of financial sanctions.
According to Habbas, this approach is considered more practical than attempting to overthrow the Iranian government through military force.
Returning to Diplomacy
Regarding the role of Arab states, Al-Otaibi stressed that Gulf capitals continue to view a return to diplomacy as the only viable path out of the crisis.
He warned that continued mutual attrition would not threaten Iran alone, but would also place global energy security and the international economy under growing pressure, particularly while the Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of the crisis.
Al-Otaibi said the United States had effectively entrusted regional mediators with the task of reaching understandings that would guarantee the security of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, Iranian-Omani negotiations have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough because Tehran continues to regard the strait as part of its national security and sovereignty. This position complicates efforts to return both sides to the negotiating table.
Al-Otaibi warned that the direct involvement of regional states in a military confrontation would produce no gains for any party.
Instead, it would expand the scale of destruction, disrupt international trade and push the world towards an economic recession whose consequences would exceed the boundaries of the conflict itself.
