Political Science Professor: Washington–Tehran tensions under control, not settled

Developments in the Middle East—particularly the conflict between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other—require close monitoring to understand possible paths of escalation or de-escalation and their implications. In a complex regional landscape, assessments vary between the chances of containing the crisis and the risk of slipping into further escalation, with direct impacts on key countries such as Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.

In this context, Dr. Dina Yacoub offers ANHA Agency an analytical reading of two possible scenarios—ending the war or its continuation—based on a framework of power balances and deterrence dynamics. She focuses on what is known as “regional spillover effects,” providing a deeper understanding of how crises interact and expand across borders.

In Case of War De-escalation

Dr. Yacoub believes that reducing tensions between the U.S./Israel and Iran—whether through direct settlement or undeclared calm—would reactivate the logic of “limited mutual deterrence” instead of open confrontation. This would regulate the pace of conflict without ending it. She stresses that this scenario does not mean sustainable peace, but rather a fragile stability based on managing, not resolving, the conflict.

She also expects a regional repositioning toward pragmatic diplomacy, especially with the return of indirect negotiations over Iran’s nuclear file. A halt in hostilities would ease pressure on energy markets, leading to relative stability in oil prices and reduced geopolitical risks, alongside a decline in the activity of armed proxies due to less need for indirect escalation.

Regional Impacts of De-escalation

According to Dr. Yacoub, this scenario would push Turkey to strengthen its role as a regional mediator, leveraging its geopolitical position while focusing on energy and reconstruction. Syria may witness gradual Arab openness, with Iranian influence remaining but in a less provocative form. Iraq, meanwhile, could gain an opportunity to contain militias and reduce tensions between Washington and Tehran, enhancing its relative stability. Iran is also expected to redirect resources inward while maintaining its regional influence in a less confrontational manner.

In Case of Continued War

On the other hand, Dr. Yacoub argues that continued confrontation would lead to “gradual escalation,” where operations expand indirectly across multiple arenas. This increases complexity without necessarily reaching full-scale war, but steadily raises risk levels.

She warns that this path could lead to the breakdown of deterrence systems, opening the door to miscalculations, alongside a growing role for non-state actors—especially in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen—thus widening the geographical scope of the conflict.

She also expects significant disruptions in global energy markets and supply chains, particularly if vital routes such as the Strait of Hormuz are affected, in addition to increased international polarization and the potential indirect involvement of major powers.

Regional Implications in Case of Escalation

In this context, Dr. Dina Yacoub believes that Turkey will face a strategic dilemma between its commitments to NATO and its interests with Iran and Russia, which may push it to adopt a “cautious balancing” policy—albeit a costly one. She also expects Syria to turn into an open arena for settling scores, with escalating airstrikes and multiple actors involved. Meanwhile, she emphasizes that Iraq will be the most fragile, as it could become a direct battleground between U.S. forces and Iran-backed factions, threatening its internal stability.

She further notes that Iran will increasingly rely on an “asymmetric warfare” strategy through proxies and indirect attacks, alongside growing economic and military pressures.

Dr. Dina Yacoub concludes that the fundamental difference between the two scenarios lies not in the existence of conflict, but in how it is managed. De-escalation means a controlled conflict governed by unwritten rules, while continued war signals a gradual slide into multi-level regional chaos.

In both cases, she stresses that the region will remain governed by a logic of “unstable equilibrium,” where no power can decisively resolve the conflict, yet none is willing to accept a final settlement.

Who is Dina Yacoub?

Dr. Dina Yacoub is a professor specializing in political science and international relations. She is known for her research and analysis in international politics, conflicts, governance, Middle East issues, and intercultural communication. She contributes to numerous academic conferences, publishes in reputable scientific journals, and regularly appears on media platforms to analyze geopolitical developments.

a.k

ANHA