- Статьи
- World
- Eternal flame: the conflict between Iran and the United States will drag on for decades
Eternal flame: the conflict between Iran and the United States will drag on for decades
Iran has resumed attacks against US allies, launching a missile strike on an American base in Jordan. The United States did not directly hit Tehran, but together with Saudi Arabia attacked pro-Iranian groups in Iraq in order to involve Riyadh in the confrontation. As a result, the five-day pause in hostilities announced by Donald Trump was interrupted. The media reports that the reason was the failed negotiations in Oman: Iran refused to jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz, as it seeks sole control over it. Experts interviewed by Izvestia state that the conflict between the United States and Iran risks dragging on for decades.
Renewed conflict in the Middle East
The US war against Iran resumed after a five-day lull: on July 29, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched a ballistic missile attack on American facilities in Jordan. According to Iranian media, the targets of the attack were the Muwaffaq Salti airbase and the headquarters of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces. Washington and Amman said that all missiles had been intercepted, there was no damage, and American troops were on maximum alert. In response, the United States attacked pro—Iranian groups in Iraq - Saudi Arabia helped them in this.
The new escalation disrupted key diplomatic processes in the region, postponing the visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zeidi to Saudi Arabia. This undid the diplomats' months-long efforts: the parties planned to sign important agreements in the fields of energy, economy and border security. Analysts agree that now the Middle East crisis will drag on for many years.
The acute phase of the confrontation will subside from time to time, but the region will still remain unstable, international political scientist Elena Suponina told Izvestia. The recent pause was intended as a time for negotiations, but Iran categorically refused to make concessions on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. According to the press, Tehran rejected Oman's plan, which tried to act as an intermediary to unblock this important transport artery. Muscat's initiative involved the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz and the collection of voluntary duties from shipowners to finance navigation and rescue operations.
According to Elena Suponina, the Iranian authorities are always looking for a catch in such proposals, since the level of mutual trust in the region is now at a critical level. In addition, Iran, unlike the United States, is not at all interested in a respite. Sensing the vulnerability of the American position, the Iranian leadership was the first to escalate in order to demonstrate the failure of Donald Trump's foreign policy. At the same time, Tehran does not consider itself bound by any obligations, since the recent lull was only a temporary oral agreement, the political scientist concluded.
Factors of continued instability
The United States remains the main destabilizing factor in the Middle East: Washington has been building regional security for decades through Iran's isolation and military dominance. Tehran considers any compromise with the White House to be a threat to its sovereignty. Control over the Strait of Hormuz is the republic's main geopolitical trump card. About 20% of the world's oil supplies pass through the strait. For Iran, sole control over it is a guarantee that the United States will not be able to completely strangle its economy with a naval blockade.
Despite the severe financial and technological isolation from the United States, Iran has not only survived, but has created one of the most powerful political systems. The Republic independently produces about 96% of all necessary medicines. Due to the low prices and high quality of surgery, Iran has become a medical hub for residents of neighboring countries. The country's military-industrial complex has proved that the blockade can be an incentive for a technological breakthrough. Without access to Western chips and aircraft, Tehran has created the largest arsenal of missiles in the Middle East.
At the same time, even a possible US withdrawal from the region and a change of power in Israel to supporters of compromise will not unravel the old knots of contradictions, says Dmitry Drobnitsky, an American political scientist. These problems have been forming for decades, having originated in the middle of the 20th century after the departure of the British and French colonialists. The European powers artificially drew the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon following the results of the First World War, completely ignoring the interests of the local population and ethnic and religious composition, which resulted in protracted civil wars in the 21st century.
The modern Middle East is split by the rivalry of four key forces. The first is Saudi Arabia. Due to its enormous oil reserves and the status of guardian of the main Islamic shrines, it has historically led the Sunni Arab camp, seeing an existential threat in Iran and an ideological threat in Turkey. Ankara, relying on a powerful economy and the second largest army in NATO, under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeks to restore influence in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, which is why it regularly conflicts with the Arab monarchies.
The third important player is the UAE— the main financial and logistics hub in the region, which promotes a model of secular authoritarianism for the sake of stable business and sees political Islam as a threat from Ankara and Tehran. Iran closes these four as the largest Shiite power with a huge missile potential: instead of a direct clash with opponents, it has built an "Axis of Resistance" from Baghdad to Beirut through a network of loyal proxy groups. The presence of four power centers makes the region a zone of tension for many years to come.
Why the US does not want to resume strikes on Iran
Washington intends to fight Tehran's influence by opposing its proxy forces, but the effectiveness of periodic airstrikes and Pentagon raids is questionable, Drobnitsky believes. An alternative protracted ground operation, following the example of the Iraq campaign, requires enormous resources; the United States has them, but the long war is damaging the image of Donald Trump. The desire to avoid a head-on collision was dictated by the desire to expose the pro-Iranian groups as an independent regional threat; moreover, the White House was not ready for escalation due to the depletion of air defense systems and the fuel crisis.
At the same time, Washington is trying to draw the Persian Gulf countries into an open conflict, which themselves did not seek it at all, because they were largely disappointed in American protection, Drobnitsky stressed. According to the expert, Saudi Arabia remained the only country capable of aggravation, finding itself in a vulnerable position after the Houthis blocked the passage to the Red Sea.
An additional incentive for Riyadh was the nuclear agreement signed with the United States in July 2026. This document will allow the kingdom to extract uranium on its territory and enrich it independently, while Washington will not prevent the state from creating nuclear weapons. The Saudis' participation in joint strikes against Shiite groups in Iraq was just the beginning, and it won't end there, the expert concluded.
The current escalation in the Middle East makes it clear that the region is plunging into a phase of total instability. The long-standing knots of political and religious contradictions have tightened too tightly, and the willingness of key players to raise the stakes definitively eliminates the scenario of rapid reconciliation. A large-scale confrontation between major powers and their proxy forces will become a determining factor in world politics for many years to come.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
