Amman – Signs are mounting that a military confrontation between the United States and Iran could resume, amid escalating mutual threats and the continued deployment of US military forces around the region. These developments are unfolding alongside diplomatic efforts led by regional actors seeking to prevent another war.
While Washington is seeking to impose its conditions and curb Iran’s influence, Tehran remains determined not to appear as the defeated party. This stance is creating complex obstacles to negotiations, particularly over the scale of concessions required from both sides.
Against this backdrop, assessments differ over the nature of a possible US move, ranging from a limited military strike targeting Iranian facilities to a broader escalation involving regional countries and interests. The possibility of reaching a diplomatic understanding remains open, although it faces considerable challenges.
Conflicting Conditions
Bader Al-Madhi, a professor of political sociology at the German Jordanian University, said current indicators suggest that the United States may be moving towards a military resolution, while Iran is taking the opposite position by raising the tone of its political and media rhetoric to demonstrate that Tehran has not submitted to American demands.
Al-Madhi added that the possibilities of war and escalation remain, particularly amid pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is pushing for an approach to the Iranian issue that would ensure American and Israeli interests in the region are not threatened.
He noted that the US administration’s calculations are also intertwined with domestic political considerations involving Congress. If US President Donald Trump loses Republican control of the House of Representatives and Senate to the Democrats, he may seek to use the remaining period of Republican control to launch military action, avoiding political restrictions or the need to obtain congressional approval for subsequent military operations.
Washington, he explained, believes it has made significant progress in containing Iran’s conduct and does not want to give Tehran another opportunity to expand its influence or portray itself as the victor in the confrontation, potentially undermining US interests in the Middle East.
Regarding diplomacy, Al-Madhi pointed to continued indirect contacts between Washington and Tehran since February, through mediators including Pakistan and Qatar. He also noted the presence of an Iranian delegation in Doha.
He said the core of the dispute lies in each side’s desire to emerge from negotiations looking victorious. Iran wants to demonstrate that it has not been defeated, while the United States seeks to present any agreement as the result of achieving its objectives and defeating Iran.
Al-Madhi believes prospects for progress in negotiations will remain limited unless Tehran becomes convinced that Washington is prepared to deliver a devastating blow to its infrastructure, potentially prompting it to reconsider its position.
He ruled out a rapid shift in Iran’s stance, arguing that the Iranian system is prepared to endure significant losses, including the destruction of parts of the country’s infrastructure, to ensure its survival and preserve Iran’s standing as a regional power.
Limited Strike or Regional Confrontation?
Political analyst and strategic expert Munther Al-Hawarat said Trump’s remarks about the possibility of destroying Iranian facilities within ten minutes suggest that the US option could involve limited strikes targeting Iranian military installations.
He explained that Iran’s potential response might not be confined to American and Israeli interests but could extend to Gulf countries in an attempt to raise the cost of confrontation and widen its scope. Such a response could involve the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab and energy facilities, potentially drawing in other regional actors.
Al-Hawarat said the prospect of a ground war appears complicated and remote because of its high cost. Meanwhile, regional mediation efforts, including those led by Qatar and Pakistan, are continuing to seek understandings based on mutual concessions, whether regarding sanctions or security arrangements.
However, he warned that Trump could use diplomacy to buy time and portray Iran as unwilling to reach an agreement before launching a swift and limited military strike.
Al-Hawarat said this scenario remains possible, despite the fact that diplomatic progress is still under discussion.
He added that the gap between the two sides remains wide and that the concessions required from both appear difficult and painful. Military strikes could therefore seem less costly to them than making those concessions.
Al-Hawarat also noted that the US elections could be one reason for delaying a decision. However, the scale of military deployments in the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and areas close to Iran reinforces the view that the region is approaching a decisive stage.
He said the current week could prove critical in determining the next course of events, as the US president has yet to make a final decision on military action.
He outlined two main possibilities: regional pressure and mediation could secure mutual concessions leading to an agreement or prevent war, or negotiations could fail and give way to renewed military action.
Al-Hawarat warned that any confrontation could begin with limited strikes but expand as a result of harsh Iranian responses against regional countries and American interests, potentially developing into a regional war involving multiple parties — a scenario the region does not need under its current circumstances.
Gradually Containing Iran’s Capabilities
Political analyst Amer Al-Sabayleh, meanwhile, said a large-scale war does not appear to be the preferred option for the US president at this stage.
Al-Sabayleh suggested that Washington may instead seek to gradually contain Iran’s capabilities through targeted operations designed to weaken Tehran’s ability to threaten maritime navigation and influence oil prices.
He explained that this approach could allow the US administration to achieve its objectives without becoming embroiled in a broad war that could push oil prices sharply higher, trigger reactions that would be difficult to contain, or lead to an open-ended confrontation with no clear outcome.
He added that US action may focus on reducing Iran’s capabilities and shifting pressure and the crisis towards Iran’s domestic front, rather than launching an all-out war that could produce regional and economic consequences difficult to control.
Source: Al-Ghad
