Researcher warns of U.S.-Iran war expanding into full-scale conflict

As the confrontation between the United States and Iran enters a more complex phase, signs are mounting that the conflict is shifting from limited strikes to a multi-front regional confrontation, raising questions about the potential involvement of new parties and the ability of diplomatic efforts to contain the escalation.

Amid the overlapping interests of regional and international powers, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq appear to be among the arenas most likely to be affected, while the repercussions are extending to maritime security, energy supplies, and the global economy, signaling a crisis that goes beyond the direct conflict between Washington and Tehran.

The confrontation enters a more dangerous phase

Hani Suleiman, a researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, believes that the confrontation between the United States and Iran is entering a new and more dangerous phase, characterized by an expansion of military targeting to include infrastructure and vital facilities, raising the prospect of the conflict spreading across the region, even if it does not escalate into a full-scale war.

Suleiman stresses that the reciprocal strikes carried out over the past period, Iran's responses, and developments on the ground all indicate that the region has entered a new pattern of escalation based on precise and intermittent strikes, one that nevertheless poses significant risks to regional security and the global economy.

New fronts and the possibility of a wider conflict

He adds that this escalation could draw new actors into the confrontation, particularly as pressure on Iran intensifies, making Iraq and Yemen the most likely fronts to become more active. The Houthis, he suggests, may expand their operations in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, alongside U.S. pressure related to the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, attacks on neighboring countries and civilian targets would increase the likelihood of the conflict expanding more than at any previous stage.

Lebanon and Iraq at the forefront of potential scenarios

Regarding the possible scenarios if the confrontation escalates, Suleiman believes that Hezbollah's front would have the greatest impact in confronting Israel, as it represents one of Iran's most important sources of leverage. Such a development, he says, would likely trigger a broad Israeli response, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could exploit to end the existing understandings and launch a renewed incursion into Lebanese territory to achieve military gains.

He also expects that increased Houthi activity would disrupt international shipping and trade and drive up oil prices, in addition to the possibility of attacks targeting U.S. bases in Iraq or neighboring countries after Iran-aligned factions used the previous period of relative calm to reorganize their ranks and rebuild their capabilities.

Syria: Limited but possible involvement

As for Syria, Suleiman indicates that the possibility of its involvement in the conflict remains lower than that of Lebanon and Iraq, but it cannot be ruled out. He explains that U.S. President Donald Trump exerted pressure on the Syrian authorities to play a role in confronting Hezbollah and disarming it; however, Damascus avoided engaging in this course.

He believes that the Syrian and Lebanese fronts could merge into a single theater of operations if the escalation continues, or that Israel could use Syrian territory to carry out strikes against Hezbollah.

Broad security and economic repercussions

Suleiman stresses that the repercussions of the crisis are no longer limited to the United States and Iran. Rather, they have become a regional security issue encompassing maritime security, trade, and neighboring countries, with the expansion of military operations in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. This has made the conflict one of the most far-reaching crises in recent decades.

He adds that the economic repercussions have become evident through rising oil prices, disruptions to global trade and supply chains, and higher shipping and insurance costs, all of which are affecting the economies of the region and the world.

The Gulf between rising prices and risks of being targeted

He points out that both sides of the conflict are facing increasing economic burdens. The United States has been affected by rising energy and commodity prices, while Iran’s economy is under greater pressure due to sanctions, declining oil revenues, and the high cost of the war. This makes a return to the diplomatic track more important for Tehran.

He believes that the Gulf states will be among the most economically affected, as their stability serves as a foundation for attracting investment, tourism, and development. Any targeting of energy facilities or disruption of oil exports would affect their ability to meet global demand, despite their temporary benefit from rising prices

The complexities of disarming factions

Regarding the issue of disarming armed factions, Suleiman believes that achieving this remains complex as long as the conflict continues. In Lebanon, disarming Hezbollah is difficult while the Israeli threat persists, and Iraqi factions may rearm if the US-Iranian confrontation continues. This problem remains in any arena where armed groups linked to Iran are present, due to the absence of a comprehensive political settlement.

He believes that Iran remains the biggest beneficiary of the continued existence of these factions as tools for managing the conflict, while neighboring countries, the United States, and Israel bear the cost of the operations carried out by these groups.

Diplomacy... limited efforts and fragile understandings

Concerning the diplomatic track, Suleiman believes that political efforts have largely failed because previous understandings did not address the root causes of the dispute, but rather were limited to managing the crisis and postponing contentious issues.

He points to the continued disagreement over the Iranian nuclear program, inspection mechanisms, and the fate of enriched uranium, in addition to the transformation of the Strait of Hormuz into a new bargaining chip used by Tehran to achieve political and economic gains. He affirms that mediators have made significant efforts, but these remain limited due to the absence of enforcement mechanisms and the widening trust gap between the two sides. Furthermore, the Russian and Chinese roles are confined to preventing an escalation without the ability to exert decisive pressure on Iran, while European countries focus more on protecting navigation and trade than on pushing for a comprehensive political settlement. This renders international efforts fragmented and incapable of ending the crisis.

A future understanding conditional on the inclusion of all parties

Hani Suleiman, a researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, emphasizes that any future understanding will remain fragile unless it includes all active parties, foremost among them Israel, which has remained excluded from previous understandings despite being a key player in the conflict.

Hani Suleiman is an Egyptian researcher and political analyst specializing in Iranian affairs, Gulf studies, and regional security. He serves as the Executive Director of the Arab Center for Research and Studies and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Center's journal, "Political Horizons."

He holds a PhD on the topic of "Changing Roles of Revolutionary Armies: A Case Study of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard." He has published numerous studies and research papers on Iranian politics, the nuclear program, Iranian-Arab relations, and Gulf security.

ANHA