Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: Halting military and financial funding represents a major retreat from the principles of the Iranian revolution, which was based on exporting the revolution.

Dr. Dalal Erekat: The United States may not resort to a comprehensive, direct strike before exhausting all diplomatic and economic pressure tools.

Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: Trump and Netanyahu share an aggressive vision based on "reshaping the Middle East by force," which increases the likelihood of confrontation.

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Any strike against Iran would be a "strategic earthquake" that would push the major powers from proxy conflicts to direct confrontation.

Dr. Walaa Qadimat: Iran still has effective tools of influence in the region and faces two choices: either accept direct negotiations or face military action.

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Froukh: Israel sees this time as a "rare, unrepeatable opportunity" to end what it calls "the head of the snake" after exhausting its arms.

The Middle East is witnessing escalating tensions between the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, amid growing indications of a possible US-Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe this escalation comes amid clear field preparations and indirect negotiations mediated by the Sultanate of Oman. These negotiations seek to reduce the chances of confrontation by having Tehran offer concessions regarding its support for armed factions in the region.

Writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors warn that any strike against Iran could lead to a widespread regional and perhaps international explosion, with the possibility of a direct Iranian response against US and Israeli bases and a threat to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which would directly impact the global economy. Meanwhile, Tehran considers its military presence in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq, along with its missile and nuclear capabilities, to be deterrent elements that would make any attack an adventure fraught with strategic consequences.

They explain that, in light of this complex landscape, assessments are divided into three scenarios: a political settlement that guarantees Iran economic gains in exchange for a decline in its regional influence, a military escalation that could ignite a full-scale war, or the collapse of the Iranian regime from within due to pressure and sanctions.

They emphasize that, in all cases, collective diplomacy remains a central tool for averting disaster, at a time when major powers are racing to redraw the map of influence in the Middle East.

US-Israeli preparations to attack Iran

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, a writer and political analyst specializing in American and strategic affairs, says that there are joint American-Israeli preparations for a military strike against Iranian nuclear and economic facilities. He points out that this step is subject to considerations in the indirect negotiations underway in the Sultanate of Oman, which have led to a decline in the likelihood of an attack recently due to concessions offered by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Al-Deek explains that if the information is correct that Tehran has agreed to American demands related to halting its support for allied groups in the region, most notably the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including agreeing to the party’s transfer of its weapons to the Lebanese army, and halting military and financial funding for these factions, which are considered Iran’s arms in the region, then this represents “a major retreat from the principles of the Iranian revolution, which was based on exporting the revolution.” He points out that Tehran has succeeded over the past three decades in spreading its influence through agents in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Al-Deek explains that indirect US-Iranian negotiations are currently underway in the Omani capital, Muscat, mediated by the Sultanate of Oman and a role played by the UAE, which has conveyed preliminary messages between the two sides.

Al-Deek points out that progress in these negotiations has reduced the likelihood of a military strike, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence on the necessity of carrying it out.

Al-Deek points out that the final decision rests with Washington, not Tel Aviv, especially given the significant economic and military repercussions that could result from any attack, including its impact on global oil markets. Iran is a major source of oil for both China and India, and any disruption to its production could exacerbate global economic crises, particularly in the United States, which is struggling with its own domestic economic challenges.

3 scenarios for US dealings with Iran

Al-Deek believes there are three main scenarios for US engagement with Iran: either by reaching political understandings through Tehran offering additional concessions on its nuclear program and regional relations, in exchange for economic gains, such as sanctions relief.

The second scenario, according to Al-Deek, is the collapse of the Iranian regime from within through increased economic sanctions and support for the opposition and ethnic minorities (such as Arabs, Azeris, and Kurds), creating "creative chaos" that would weaken the regime.

Al-Deek points to the third scenario: a military strike against Iran, which would be met with a violent Iranian response, including attacks on US bases in the region and deep within Israel, potentially igniting a widespread regional war.

Al-Deek believes that the military scenario remains the weakest, given several factors, including: Iran's military power extending into the mountains and underground facilities; Tehran's ability to target US bases in the Middle East and even overseas; and the risk of regional escalation, which could benefit US enemies, such as Russia and China, who seek to weaken Washington by embroiling it in new conflicts.

Al-Deek points out that US President Donald Trump's policy is based on avoiding new wars, which contradicts the option of a military strike, increasing the likelihood of a political settlement.

Al-Deek says, "The most likely scenario is a US-Iranian understanding, while a military strike or the overthrow of the regime from within remain distant options in the foreseeable future, unless negotiations fail completely."

The option of confrontation is not excluded

For her part, Dr. Dalal Araikat, professor of diplomacy and conflict resolution at the Arab American University, says that amidst the climate of regional tension and the increasing US military presence in the Gulf region, the option of a military confrontation between the United States and Iran cannot be ruled out, even though it is not the preferred option for either side.

Erekat explains that the repeated verbal escalation by US President Donald Trump, coupled with the US military buildup in the Gulf waters, poses a dangerous scenario for the region.

Erekat says, "The United States may not resort to a comprehensive, direct strike before exhausting all diplomatic and economic pressure tools and attempting to convey deterrent messages through measured, limited strikes."

Erekat believes the options available to the Trump administration are limited to limited escalation through precision strikes, continued economic sanctions to weaken Iran internally, or opening negotiations under strict conditions to reshape the nuclear agreement to serve Washington's agenda.

The repercussions of the war are disastrous for the region.

Erekat believes that Iran faces three strategic options: First, accepting indirect dialogue while maintaining its rhetoric of steadfastness and the state's prestige before its people and allies. Second, regional escalation through its military proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to expand the scope of the conflict. Third, what she calls "strategic patience," i.e., betting on potential changes after the upcoming US elections or shifts in the regional balance of power.

Erekat warns that a simple miscalculation or field incident could ignite a confrontation that neither side wants, but whose repercussions could be disastrous for the region.

Erekat points to the possibility of multiple regional fronts erupting, threatening navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and the potential for some Arab regimes to face internal pressure due to their alliances with Washington or normalization with Israel.

Erekat asserts that the only tool currently available to the countries of the region to avoid a comprehensive explosion lies in strengthening multilateral diplomacy and supporting the collective regional role to open new paths for dialogue and negotiation.

"Settlement within two months" or else..

In turn, writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad says that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, based on the principle of "peace through strength," coupled with a strategic alliance with the Israeli right-wing led by Benjamin Netanyahu, could lead to a wave of aggressive escalation against Iran, including the possibility of a preemptive military strike against Iranian nuclear and strategic facilities.

Awad asserts that recent US statements and actions, such as supplying Israel with bunker-busting bombs, sending military reinforcements to the region including aircraft carriers and strategic aircraft, and Trump's direct warning to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that they must reach a "settlement within two months" on the nuclear issue, indicate that Washington and Tel Aviv are preparing for advanced scenarios that could escalate to a military confrontation.

Awad points out that Jewish and Zionist lobbies in the United States are exerting strong pressure on the US administration to allow Israel to carry out strikes against Iran, especially after Tel Aviv's success in exhausting Tehran's regional proxies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"Israel wants to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat and become the unrivaled dominant power in the region," Awad says.

An Iran strike will not resemble the 2003 Iraq War.

Awad points out that Trump and Netanyahu share an aggressive vision based on "reshaping the Middle East by force," which increases the likelihood of confrontation, especially with reports of Israeli preparations for "limited" strikes targeting nuclear facilities, or even "comprehensive" strikes encompassing Iran's military and economic infrastructure.

Awad warns that any military strike against Iran would not resemble the 2003 Iraq War, explaining that Tehran possesses multi-layered deterrence tools, including: a still-mysterious nuclear program, the true extent of which has not been revealed; a ballistic missile arsenal capable of striking US bases in the Gulf and even Europe; and the option of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would lead to a global oil crisis, especially given China and India's dependence on Iranian oil. Iran also has a network of regional allies (such as Hezbollah and the Houthis) who could launch retaliatory attacks against US and Israeli interests, as well as international allies who could intervene on its behalf.

Awad says, "If Iran feels that the strike threatens its existence, it may use all its military and economic tools, and allies like Russia or China may even intervene indirectly, to turn the conflict into a war that is not just regional, but global in scope."

Awad anticipates three possible scenarios: either a limited Israeli strike targeting nuclear facilities, avoiding direct confrontation; a comprehensive US-led war that would include the destruction of Iran's military and economic infrastructure, but would be met with a retaliation that could extend to the Gulf states and US bases in the Indian Ocean; or a political settlement under duress, where Tehran would offer nuclear concessions under the pressure of a military threat. However, this scenario appears unlikely given the intransigence of Trump and Khamenei.

Catastrophic scenarios militarily, politically and economically

For his part, Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of Brazil's Academic Research Center, says that any comprehensive US military strike against Iran could constitute a "third turning point" in the history of the Middle East, following the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 Arab Spring. He asserts that such an escalation would open the door to catastrophic scenarios militarily, politically, and economically.

Harfoush explains that any American preemptive strike against Iranian facilities, without authorization from the Security Council or based on Article (51) of the United Nations Charter regarding legitimate defense, is considered “blatant aggression” and a violation of the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations.

Harfoush asserts that this move could undermine the international legal system and legitimize aggression under unverifiable security pretexts, thus threatening global stability.

Harfoush expects the US strike to target Iranian nuclear facilities, such as Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, in addition to missile research and air defense centers.

Harfoush points out that Iran possesses formidable deterrent capabilities, including ballistic missiles that could target US bases in the region, drones that could disrupt Gulf oil facilities, and regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and militias in Syria and Yemen, which could launch proxy attacks.

Harfouche predicts a temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global energy supplies and send oil prices to record highs.

Harfoush warns that the strike could lead to: new international alignments led by Russia, China, and Turkey against US policies; a deterioration in US-European relations, especially if the strike is carried out without congressional or allied approval; and severe economic crises, with the price of oil potentially reaching $150 per barrel. This would make matters worse for European and Asian economies, leading to the collapse of Gulf financial markets and the flight of foreign capital due to panic.

Iran's options to respond to the aggression

Professor Harfoush presents several options Iran might employ to respond, including direct tactical attacks against American or Israeli interests in the Gulf, Iraq, and Syria, or a proxy war through its regional militias to deplete American forces.

According to Harfoush, Iran may resort to nuclear escalation by increasing uranium enrichment, withdrawing from international protocols, or launching a diplomatic and legal campaign to prosecute the United States in international forums.

Harfoush believes the worst-case scenario is for the region to slide into all-out war, which could lead to: a redrawing of the geopolitical map of the Middle East, with the erosion of the borders of fragile states, an escalation of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, particularly in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, or new waves of mass displacement due to the expansion of the conflict.

Harfoush emphasizes that Arab countries must not remain passive spectators, but rather adopt an active diplomacy to prevent involvement in conflicts that only serve the interests of "arms factory owners and reconstruction companies."

Harfoush warns that any strike against Iran would be a "strategic earthquake" that would push the major powers from proxy conflicts into direct confrontation, with dire consequences.

Iran is a pivotal player through its military arms.

Writer and political researcher Dr. Walaa Qadimat says that the United States' current timing regarding the Iranian threat falls within the framework of its strategy to reshape Tehran's role in the region by reducing its influence and trimming its extended reach in several regional arenas. She believes this approach is an extension of the approach of US President Donald Trump's administration to reorder the Middle East to serve both American and Israeli interests.

Qadeem believes that Iran's ability to destabilize the region through its military and security arms has made it a pivotal player. Tehran has deployed effective tools of influence, as evidenced by the Houthis in Yemen, who have played a significant role in threatening navigation in the Red Sea. This reflects the extent of Iranian influence and the importance of its regional and international alliances, particularly with Russia and China.

The sources indicate that there is genuine concern within the United States and the occupying state of Israel that Iran is approaching the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. This has prompted Washington to adopt serious steps to pressure Tehran, including direct military threats, as Trump did when he threatened to bomb Iran and impose heavy tariffs if a direct agreement is not reached regarding its nuclear program.

Israel's opportunity to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities

Qaddimat asserts that Washington has already begun strengthening its military presence in the region to counter any potential escalation, noting that Israel considers the current situation an opportune moment to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and has declared its readiness to take direct military action to prevent Iran from developing this weapon.

As for Iran's options, Qadeemat explains that Tehran still possesses effective tools of influence in the region, and faces two main choices: either accept direct negotiations as Washington desires, or face military action, which may be limited and calculated, or directed at striking the regime from within and dismantling it.

Qadimat indicates that Iran has shown partial openness to indirect talks, and perhaps direct talks later. However, managing American threats and avoiding military confrontation remain among the scenarios on the table. Meanwhile, Israel and the United States are clearly seeking to reduce Iranian influence and limit its nuclear capabilities, keeping the option of military escalation open.

Qadeemat asserts that, in the event of a strike, Iran's response would be direct and would include US forces in the region and the occupying state of Israel. This could open the door to a new phase of confrontation and competition in the Middle East, using new tools that go beyond US interests to affect broader regional balances.

The region is facing a major strategic transformation.

For his part, journalist and political analyst Dr. Mahmoud Al-Froukh says the region is on the cusp of a major strategic shift, potentially embodied by a severe military strike against Iran. He predicts this strike will be imminent and irreversible, given what he describes as "golden" and unprecedented conditions for Israel and the United States.

Al-Faroukh adds: "All regional and international indicators and circumstances are now entirely favorable for Israel and the United States to launch a direct strike against Iran, primarily targeting its nuclear program and limiting its regional interventions, which have long posed a threat to Arab and Israeli national security alike."

Al-Faroukh points out that "Israel's dismantling of Iran's arms in the region," such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as the calm in Syria and Iraq, paves the way for a direct strategic strike against Iranian territory.

Al-Faroukh believes that Israel sees this time as a "rare, unrepeatable opportunity" to end what it calls "the head of the snake," after its arms have been exhausted.

US-Iran negotiations are doomed to fail

Al-Faroukh emphasizes that there is a US-Israeli consensus, with clear Arab support, regarding this military option, particularly under the administration of US President Donald Trump, who seeks to reshape the regional order in the Middle East in a manner that serves the principle of a "new Middle East."

Regarding the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran, Al-Faroukh explained that they are "doomed to failure," suggesting that the Zionist lobby will likely work to thwart any attempts at rapprochement, paving the way for a military attack.

Al-Faroukh asserts that Iran faces difficult challenges. Tehran must either make tangible concessions regarding its nuclear program and foreign policy, or bear the consequences of a devastating strike.

Al-Faroukh points out that the strike could be "preemptive and shocking," depriving Iran of its ability to respond to US bases in the region or even Israel, as a result of prior coordination with Iran's neighbors to contain any potential retaliation.

Al-Faroukh warns that the aftermath of the strike will not be the same as before, noting that the Middle East will enter a new phase in which Arab-Israeli relations will be fully normalized, and what he calls "the second great rise of the State of Israel" will begin within the framework of the "Greater Israel" project extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, in accordance with the Zionist biblical vision.