Weeks after the collapse of the ceasefire, the confrontation between the United States and Iran is entering what may be its most dangerous phase since hostilities began.
US air strikes have expanded beyond Iranian military sites to include infrastructure, while Tehran has responded by targeting American bases, ships and vital facilities across the region. The widening scope of the attacks has intensified fears that the Middle East could slide into a full-scale war.
American and British newspapers portray a conflict escalating at an alarming pace, while analysts warn that both sides are acting in ways that could produce “a war that cannot be contained” unless a rapid de-escalation is reached.
Reports by Britain’s The Telegraph and The Economist, the US-based Wall Street Journal, and an analysis published by The New York Times suggest that Washington and Tehran both face military, political and economic constraints that make a prolonged war difficult. Those limitations, however, may not prevent further escalation before either side returns to negotiations.
Why Is Concern Growing?
The concern is not limited to the exchange of strikes, but extends to the nature of the targets.
According to an analysis by Erika Solomon, The New York Times bureau chief for Iran and Iraq, attacks are no longer confined to military installations. They have expanded to water and desalination plants, roads and other infrastructure.
Solomon added that the Strait of Hormuz has returned to the centre of the crisis as shipping has been disrupted and the blockade of Iranian ports has resumed, threatening the global economy and energy supplies.
Her analysis described the war as having reached a “critical moment”, with experts warning that any miscalculation could transform the current escalation into a conflict that neither side could control.
A broader confrontation could also push Iran to use allied forces, including the Houthis, to disrupt shipping through the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Such a move would open a second maritime front alongside the Strait of Hormuz.
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reported that Jordan had become one of the most dangerous arenas in the confrontation after emerging as a major centre for US military operations.
Iran targeted several bases hosting American forces inside Jordan, killing US soldiers for the first time since the ceasefire collapsed.
Inside the United States, The Economist identified another dimension to the crisis, describing the war as the least popular in modern American history since opinion polling began.
President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have declined amid rising fuel prices and growing concern over the absence of a clear strategy to end the conflict. The political damage could also threaten Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.
What Is the State of Military Capabilities?
According to The Telegraph, Trump is considering options for a broader war against Iran as Washington sends additional forces to the Middle East.
The reinforcements include F-16 fighter jets previously stationed in Germany, F-35 aircraft from Britain, and an increase in the number of aerial refuelling aircraft based in Israel.
However, a US official familiar with the matter told The Telegraph that the United States does not possess sufficient stocks of long-range missiles and air defence munitions to sustain a large and prolonged war with Iran.
The official warned that current stockpiles may not allow operations to continue safely if the conflict expands.
The report also cited experts who said the United States was not prepared for a ground operation inside Iran. Trump has not ruled out such an option, but it would carry major risks, including heavy casualties and a prolonged war.
Iran is also under considerable pressure. Trump said US strikes had caused significant damage to its military capabilities.
Despite this, Tehran still holds important pressure points, including the ability to strike US bases across the region and disrupt navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the reports.
Solomon argued that Iran understands it cannot defeat the United States militarily, but is seeking to demonstrate that it can prolong the war and increase its costs in order to strengthen its position in any future negotiations.
Is There Still Space for Negotiations?
Despite the military escalation, all four reports agree that a purely military solution appears increasingly remote.
According to Solomon’s analysis, several experts believe both sides have reached a point where they understand that open war would carry severe political and economic costs.
Iran was already suffering from a deep economic crisis before the war, and the situation has worsened under military pressure and the maritime blockade.
Trump, meanwhile, faces growing domestic pressure because of falling public support and rising energy prices.
Analysts argue that Iran’s recent strikes are not intended to secure a military victory, but to preserve bargaining leverage and avoid appearing weak.
The White House, in turn, may seek to carry out further strikes to improve its negotiating position before returning to diplomacy.
A return to negotiations, however, will not be straightforward.
Every new attack increases the risk of miscalculation, while additional American military deaths or attacks on strategic facilities in the Gulf could push Washington towards a broader response, according to Solomon.
The Economist added that continuing the war without clear objectives or an exit strategy could become an electoral burden for Trump, making a political settlement increasingly necessary.
Any negotiations, however, will depend first on whether both sides can halt the cycle of escalation.
For now, the region remains caught between two opposing possibilities: a military escalation that could draw the Middle East into a wider regional war, or a prolonged exchange of pressure that eventually leads back to negotiations after the region has paid an even greater price in security, stability and economic damage.
