The confrontation between the United States and Iran does not appear to be heading toward full-scale war, according to political and strategic experts, but is instead settling into a more complex pattern: sustained pressure designed to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its military and economic strength. That shift, experts told Al-Ghad, could open the region to a new kind of conflict, one without a clear endpoint or resolution.
اضافة اعلان
The experts said the more significant change may not be the pace of strikes, but their purpose. Rather than pursuing a decisive military victory, Washington appears to be using strikes to keep Iran contained, while relying on economic pressure to drain its capacity to recover.
Without a political track capable of turning periods of calm into an actual settlement, the experts warned, the region risks a prolonged, low-intensity conflict, one where the tools of confrontation shift and recur while neither a clear victory nor a resolution materializes.
From "Striking Iran" to "Managing Iran"
According to the experts, Washington is redefining the role of military force, moving from attempts at decisive change to using strikes as a means of limiting Iranian capabilities. This military pressure runs alongside tightening sanctions on oil, finance, trade and supply chains. The goal, they said, is no longer to destroy Iranian capabilities outright, but to make rebuilding them slower, costlier and harder.
Nidal Abu Zeid, a political analyst, said the pattern of US actions on the ground shows Washington is not seeking to eliminate Iran's current government, but to recalibrate it in ways that limit its military behavior. He said this is being pursued through a combination of financial sanctions and calculated, limited military escalation.
Abu Zeid said the US approach is not aimed at occupying Iran or destroying its capabilities entirely, but at reducing them to a level that establishes a new deterrence balance in the region, one that keeps Iran below the threshold of an occupying power while curbing the behavior of the government and the Revolutionary Guard.
He said the coming phase could bring a new model of conflict management built on renewed financial sanctions combined with periodic, selective military operations, keeping Iran under constant pressure without triggering full-scale war.
Abu Zeid added that these operations could become a central tool for pushing Iran to make concessions and return to negotiations, particularly as its bargaining position weakens.
He warned that any Iranian attempt to alter the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, or to bypass restrictions there, could draw a direct American response, reinforcing a policy built around containment rather than open war.
A Dual Track of Military and Economic Pressure
Bader Al-Madi, a professor of political science at the German Jordanian University, said Washington has gradually shifted from testing its military options to expanding economic pressure, after concluding that military force alone might not deliver the political change it sought.
Al-Madi said the initial phase of US operations focused on weakening Iran's military infrastructure and nuclear facilities, along with some naval capabilities, while leaving missile capabilities largely untouched. Washington then moved to maximize economic pressure alongside continued military pressure and a blockade on Iranian ports.
He said this combination places Iran under dual pressure, military and economic, noting that the United States has previously relied on prolonged sanctions and blockades to weaken adversary economies without sustained military engagement.
Al-Madi said the economic pressure is now directly affecting Iranian society, presenting the Revolutionary Guard with a difficult choice between confronting public discontent or escalating internal repression, either of which could prolong instability inside Iran. He said the region is likely to remain unstable for an extended period, but this does not necessarily mean a return to large-scale military operations, as Washington will likely try to keep the conflict within managed limits while leaning more heavily on economic tools.
Strikes as a Tool to Control the "Ceiling" of Iranian Power
Bashir Al-Da'aja, another political analyst, said Washington's strategy has shifted from using military strikes to force decisive change to managing Iran's capabilities and applying constant pressure, preventing Tehran from rebuilding its strength to a level that would let it reassert regional influence.
Al-Da'aja said Washington now treats military strikes less as a way to end the Iranian threat and more as a tool to control the ceiling of Iranian power, used alongside financial, oil and trade sanctions and restrictions on funding, technology and supply chains.
He said that while strikes can destroy specific facilities, they do not necessarily stop Iran from rebuilding them. Combining military force with economic pressure, he argued, is meant to make that rebuilding more costly and difficult, reflecting a policy of striking capabilities when they become threats, then blocking their economic and technological reproduction.
Al-Da'aja said a complete military victory over Iran is an unrealistic option given the country's size, industrial and military infrastructure, and experience withstanding sanctions and wars. He said weakening and deterring Iran, without occupying it or removing its government, is the more realistic path for Washington.
He identified Iranian oil exports as a central target of US pressure, given their role funding the state, economy and military spending, while Washington also seeks to limit Iran's ability to finance regional allies. However, he cautioned that heavy economic pressure could backfire, potentially pushing Iran to escalate through regional proxies to offset domestic losses.
Al-Da'aja said the US objective is not a powerless Iran, but one that is economically constrained, militarily limited and unable to rebuild quickly. He said future strikes are likely to be more selective, targeting capabilities Washington deems to have exceeded acceptable limits, while sanctions and political pressure continue in parallel.
A "Gray Area Between War and Peace"
Al-Da'aja said this trajectory marks a shift from a short war with a defined beginning and end to a prolonged management of the balance of power, one intended to slow and raise the cost of Iran's recovery without guaranteeing the elimination of its influence, given Tehran's capacity to adapt and its international economic ties.
He said continued escalation without a genuine political track could leave the region in a "gray area between war and peace," marked by repeated strikes, retaliatory attacks, cyberattacks and sanctions, interspersed with periods of de-escalation and mediation before renewed rounds of conflict.
He warned this scenario could prove more damaging to the region than a short war, since it leaves markets, shipping, energy and investment perpetually exposed to the risk of escalation, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a flashpoint that serves Iran as a bargaining chip and the United States as a justification for intervention.
Al-Da'aja said the greatest risk lies in miscalculation, warning that a single strike on a sensitive site, or one causing significant casualties, could escalate a limited confrontation into a full-blown war. He said a swift, comprehensive settlement appears unlikely in the near term, though not impossible, and would likely be gradual, covering nuclear, missile and military issues alongside maritime security, regional influence, sanctions and security guarantees.
He concluded that without a genuine settlement, the Middle East risks entering a prolonged period of mutual deterrence and limited escalation, where neither side can force a decisive outcome. He described the years ahead as more likely to bring attrition than resolution, leaving the region caught between a war that has not ended and a peace that has not begun.
Source: Al-Ghad.
