There was widespread expectation that a US-Israeli strike on Iran was imminent, but things have calmed down somewhat gradually. Questions remain about the scale and timing of the strike. Would it be a deterrent message to Iran, pressuring it to change its policies in the region, or, as some believe, could the goal be to launch a full-scale war to topple the regime?
This scenario remains unlikely, given its ideological, political, and security consequences. What could be rather possible is a weakening of the regime and the creation of internal confusion among influential forces. Regional changes, most notably the change in Syria, have undoubtedly deprived Tehran of a key asset and significantly weakened its position and, consequently, its strategic influence in the power dynamics of the Levant. Added to this are the repercussions of the Israeli war of attrition on Lebanon, which appears to be ongoing, with the heavy losses that Lebanon continues to bear across various sectors.
Returning to the scenarios of war with Iran, it seems that the American main objective remains to cause a change in Iranian policies, specifically in foreign policy, both political and security-related, and particularly regionally. This seems to be more important to the international powers clashing with Tehran's policies than internal issues, such as the popular uprising in Iran, which served as a wake-up call regarding internal economic and social crisis. These are challenges that the Iranian authorities must address realistically in order to return to a path of stability, rather than denying this reality, even if it is contained for a short period.
Several Arab and regional parties concerned with stability in the Gulf and the Middle East are working to mediate to contain the situation, stop the escalation, and avoid a war that could have many possible outcomes.
At this sensitive stage of the confrontation and its multiple possibilities, there is a race between the return to dialogue and the escalation on the Iranian front. One of the most complex issues on the negotiating table is President Trump's insistence on "zero nuclear enrichment" for Iran. Iran categorically rejects this, insisting on its right to enrichment according to the terms and conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The American proposal to establish a regional enrichment centre in the Gulf, in which Iran would participate, as an alternative to enrichment on Iranian soil, is something that Tehran completely rejects. Add to this comes the Israeli factor and its potential which could push Washington toward a war with Iran, given the various American priorities in the region.
All these issues remain on the table for both indirect and direct negotiations, and they are interconnected. Will the escalating tension, despite occasional but necessary signs of de-escalation, lead to a containment and a gradual return to negotiation as the sole option, or will we witness limited conflicts in time and space, serving as threats towards a controlled escalation? Or will we see an open war, into which the parties involved might be drawn, a war that could extend beyond Iran's immediate strategic geographic limits, with varying degrees of repercussions? These are all questions that the coming days will answer.