Relations between the United States and Iran are once again entering a phase of sharp escalation. US President Donald Trump is increasingly using tough rhetoric in his statements, not ruling out a силового scenario. The reason is Tehran's nuclear program, the activity of Iranian proxy forces in the Middle East, and the strategic struggle for regional influence.
Israel declared the highest state of readiness for a possible war. Officials consider a US strike on Iran, which Israel would join, to be inevitable.
According to Axios, Donald Trump may order large-scale strikes on Iran that would last several weeks. This operation would likely be a joint American-Israeli campaign.
Political observer Hennadiy Dubov, in a comment for UNN, explained what exactly the United States is currently seeking from Iran and whether a new stage of military escalation is possible.
A brief history of the conflict
The confrontation between the US and Iran has lasted for over four decades. The modern animosity began after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the pro-American Shah's regime was overthrown and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power. At the same time, the crisis with the seizure of American diplomats in Tehran occurred – an event that finally destroyed relations between the countries.
In the following decades, the parties were in a state of indirect conflict: sanctions, diplomatic isolation, mutual accusations of supporting terrorism and interfering in regional affairs.
According to expert Hennadiy Dubov, Washington's position is quite clear and consists of several key points.
It's very simple to explain to people what Trump, what the States want from Iran now? Well, they mainly want two things. What is publicly voiced is the appropriate cessation of the nuclear program. Iran, by the way, during negotiations with the US, offered to export its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to Russia to avoid military conflict.
In addition, the missile program of Tehran remains an important issue.
The second position is to reduce the missile program so that the range of the missiles does not allow them to attack the state of Israel.
According to him, the problem lies not only in the technical characteristics of the missiles, but also in the political context.
They are not a democracy, they supported Hamas and have weapons capable of reaching the territory of the state of Israel. These are the main problems and disagreements that the United States has with Iran. Accordingly, they seek to eliminate these risks.
The nuclear deal and its collapse
In 2015, during Barack Obama's presidency, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed – an agreement between Iran and a group of states (USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia) that limited Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
However, in 2018, Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement, calling it "catastrophic" and not restraining Iran harshly enough. The US reinstated large-scale economic sanctions. In response, Tehran gradually abandoned some of its commitments and resumed uranium enrichment at levels close to military.
Suleimani's assassination and the risk of a major war
In January 2020, the US eliminated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike in Baghdad. This marked the peak of tension: Iran responded with missile strikes on bases with American troops in Iraq. The world was then one step away from a direct military conflict. Despite this, the parties avoided a full-scale war, limiting themselves to a show of force.
Why Trump talks about war
Trump's rhetoric is based on several key factors:
Iran's nuclear program. According to Western intelligence estimates, Tehran has significantly reduced the time needed to create nuclear weapons, should it make a political decision.
Support for proxy groups. The US accuses Iran of supporting armed groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen that attack American and allied targets.
Middle East security. Iran remains the main strategic adversary of Israel, a key US ally.
Domestic political factor. A tough stance on Iran is traditionally supported by a part of the Republican electorate and demonstrates "forceful leadership" on the international stage.
Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran "will never have nuclear weapons" and has allowed for the use of force if diplomacy fails.
Is a major war possible?
A full-scale war between the US and Iran would mean massive destabilization of the entire Middle East: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, rising oil prices, the involvement of Israel and Arab states, and the risk of global economic turbulence.
At the same time, both sides understand the high cost of direct conflict. Therefore, the current situation is more like balancing on the brink - with the use of sanctions, cyberattacks, strikes through allies, and demonstrative military steps.
The confrontation between the US and Iran is not just about the nuclear program. It is a struggle for regional dominance, the security architecture of the Middle East, and global influence. And each new statement about a possible war is an element of this great geopolitical game.
UNN asked Hennadiy Dubov whether a new strike on Iran could lead to a major war, given the pressure and previous strikes. The expert is skeptical about the prospect of a ground campaign.
A ground war - no, because it will be very difficult for the Americans. Iran is a country where more than 90 million people live. It is large in territory, it is not even Iraq. The country is very large, it is even difficult to imagine how to fight there.
He drew a parallel with modern wars and noted that even massive strikes do not always yield a strategic result.
I think that even our experience shows: even thousands of weapons that were used against Ukraine did not represent a catastrophe for us.
According to him, even if it comes to strikes, it is unlikely to mean a full-scale ground operation.
Ukraine needs to "root" for peace
In the Ukrainian context, according to Hennadiy Dubov, the most important issue is the stability of energy markets.
What should Ukrainians root for in this whole situation? Well, as if the answer is obvious, that it is worth rooting for the United States. But in fact, from my point of view, it is worth rooting for none of this to happen.
He emphasized the economic risks for the world and, in particular, for Ukraine, if the conflict in the region escalates into a full-scale war.
If there is a full-scale war in the region, the Strait of Hormuz will likely be closed. The region accounts for almost 40% of oil, which will affect world imports.
The expert stressed that the consequence would be a sharp rise in oil prices and a strengthening of Russia's position.
This will mean that the price of oil will rise significantly, which will strengthen Russia very, very seriously and, probably, for a very long time.
Dubov also drew attention to the possible impact on China and global energy flows.
Even if Iran stops supplying oil to the People's Republic of China, as Venezuela did, the Chinese will replace Iranian oil with Russian oil. And given that China can buy all Russian oil, this also matters for our interests. Therefore, I think we need peace there.
Protests in Iran and regime resilience
Commenting on the issue of mass protests in Iran and the possibility of the regime's fall, Dubov noted that the power system there has a significant margin of safety.
It is an Islamic republic. There is such a factor as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These are, in essence, parallel armed forces. They have entire sectors of the economy, they are an integral part of the regime, which, of course, is difficult to weaken.
In his opinion, the regime has institutional mechanisms of self-preservation, which complicates the scenario of rapid changes.
Should we expect a war between the US and Iran in the near future?
In conclusion, UNN asked Hennadiy Dubov for his forecast regarding possible strikes on Iran in the near future.
Although the media talks about the failure of negotiations, there is actually some progress, and if there have been no strikes so far, it indicates that the war is currently being used more as a tool of pressure. Therefore, I do not expect a serious military strike in the near future.
Thus, according to Hennadiy Dubov, the current military rhetoric rather serves as a tool of pressure within the negotiation process than as a harbinger of immediate large-scale escalation.