Washington and Tehran... mutual threats and accelerating developments bring back the specter of confrontation

Dr. Tamara Haddad: Tehran adopts a strategy of "calculated revenge" to prove its ability to respond and impose its conditions, and Washington raises the level of its threats to push Iran to recalculate.

Sari Sammour: There are no guarantees about the non-expansion of the confrontation or its getting out of control, especially with indications of a possible escalation after the World Cup.

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: Trump's statements in response to being targeted aim to strengthen American deterrence and send a message that any targeting of the American leadership will be met with a harsh response.

Labib Taha: The massive funeral of the former Supreme Leader and the millions-strong marches that accompanied it came as a surprise to the United States and contributed to its feeling that its goals had not been fully achieved.

Dr. Qusai Hamed: The possibility of war returning has become likely, given the mediators' inability so far to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table or contain the escalating tension.

Nouman Tawfiq Al-Abed: The new Supreme Leader's statements aim to convey a message that the assassination of Iranian leaders will not prevent Tehran from responding, but may push it to adopt more hardline positions.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

The accelerating developments between the United States and Iran are bringing the region back into a cycle of tension, with escalating political and military rhetoric and an exchange of threats between Tehran and Washington, at a time when doubts are increasing about the ability of previous understandings to prevent the collapse of the truce, amidst continuing disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear file, and deterrence mechanisms between the two parties.

Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that the current stage is characterized by a cautious balance based on the exchange of pressures and military messages, as Tehran tries to maintain its cards of influence and confirm its ability to respond, while Washington continues to tighten its deterrence and pressure policy to extract concessions in the pending files, amidst increasing indications of the fragility of the negotiation process and the difficulty of reaching a stable settlement.

They point out that the scene remains open to multiple possibilities, starting with the continuation of limited confrontations and mutual strikes, and may extend to a wider regional escalation if developments get out of control, while the diplomatic path remains open but faces major challenges, with the continued divergence of the positions of the two parties and the overlap of regional and international calculations, which threatens navigation and energy security and stability in the region.

A new, extremely dangerous stage

Political writer and researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad confirms that the Arabian Gulf region is entering a new, extremely dangerous stage at both the political and military levels, in light of the escalating tension between Iran and the United States, especially after Iranian statements regarding the Strait of Hormuz, and the mutual responses between the Iranian leadership and US President Donald Trump.

Haddad explains that Iran affirms its adherence to the option of closing the Strait of Hormuz, at a time when Washington is awaiting a clear position from the Iranian Foreign Ministry regarding opening the strait without fees, and without targeting passing ships, noting that the file has become a key point of contention between the two sides.

Haddad believes that the statements of Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei regarding revenge for his father's killing, along with the positions of the Revolutionary Guard, reflect the continuation of the theory of revenge within Iranian calculations. In contrast, Trump responded with an unprecedented threat, especially after Israeli intelligence information spoke of the possibility of him being targeted by Iran, stressing that any attempt to do so would be met with a wide military response against Tehran.

Haddad confirms that these developments come in a fragile regional environment still affected by the repercussions of the recent war between the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, noting that the existing memorandum of understanding was built on an unstable reality, in the absence of a clear common ground between the two parties, and the Strait of Hormuz remaining the core of the problem.

Leaders are part of the deterrence and revenge equation

According to Haddad, the implications of the escalation go beyond media warfare and the exchange of political messages, as they reflect the transition of the conflict to a stage of "personal deterrence," where political leaders themselves have become part of the equation of revenge and deterrence.

She points out that Iran seeks to demonstrate its ability to respond to preserve the prestige of the regime and its internal cohesion, while Washington tries to establish a policy of maximum deterrence to prevent any targeting of American interests or leaders.

Haddad explains that Tehran adopts a strategy of "calculated revenge." It does not want to be dragged into a comprehensive war, but it seeks to prove its ability to respond and impose its conditions in any negotiation, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz file and related issues, while Washington continues to raise the level of threats to push Iran to recalculate.

Haddad points out that the importance of the Gulf is not only linked to the American military presence, but also to its being a major artery for global energy, which means that any military escalation will affect oil prices, navigation, and international supply chains.

Limited escalation and fears of sliding into a regional confrontation

Regarding the possibilities of returning to war, Haddad explains that the most likely scenario is a limited escalation through indirect operations, cyberattacks, and the deliberate targeting of American and Israeli interests, in exchange for limited responses that maintain deterrence without an open war. However, Haddad warns of another scenario: the possibility of sliding into a wide regional confrontation if there is a miscalculation or a large number of casualties.

According to Haddad, the third scenario is to contain the escalation through diplomatic channels, due to all parties' awareness of the high cost of a comprehensive war, stressing that the region does not necessarily face a wide war, but it is experiencing a very dangerous stage due to the high probability of miscalculation, while mutual deterrence remains the most prominent factor in preventing a major explosion.

Understandings that do not last long

Political writer and analyst Sari Sammour explains that the memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran was not sustainable for long, and the American side is working to violate it, which has already happened, but he stresses that the degree of the upcoming escalation remains unpredictable in light of the fluidity and tension in the region.

Sammour points out that the United States is currently carrying out "calculated" escalation operations, and Iranian responses are within calculated limits, but there are no guarantees about the non-expansion of the confrontation or its getting out of control, especially with indications, statements, and leaks talking about the possibility of escalation after the World Cup.

Sammour believes that the statements of Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei regarding revenge for his father's killing left the door open, noting that Tehran has become accustomed to issuing threats of revenge without specifying a date or announcing the start of direct operations.

Targeting Trump and internal calculations

As for US President Donald Trump's repeated statements about the possibility of him being personally targeted, Sammour believes that they may be more related to American internal calculations and Trump's personality, rather than being an indication of actual plans to assassinate him.

He points out that Trump uses this rhetoric to justify escalation and create a special image of himself, citing the change in his rhetoric between talking about making peace and stopping wars on the one hand, and saying that he targeted Iran or that he is exposed to assassination on the other.

Between the scenario of returning to de-escalation and escalation

Regarding the upcoming scenarios, Sammour explains that the first scenario is Trump's return to de-escalation and the re-implementation of the memorandum of understanding, but he considered it an unlikely scenario.

The second scenario, according to Sammour, is the continuation of limited and calculated escalation between the two parties with the aim of improving negotiation conditions and reaching a new understanding.

Sammour points out that the third scenario is the expansion of military operations, including a greater escalation around the Strait of Hormuz and perhaps its extension to the Bab al-Mandab Strait through the Houthis entering the confrontation line, which could lead to an expansion of the circle of responses and tension in the region.

Israel's role in the scene

Sammour draws attention to Israel's role in the scene, referring to reports that spoke of Gulf demands for the United States to pressure Israel to prevent its intervention, because any Israeli participation could expand the circle of fire and lead to a series of strikes and responses that would return the region to the atmosphere of the previous war, and perhaps on a wider scale.

He believes that the danger of the situation lies in the inability of any party to guarantee the course of events, explaining that the United States may be able to start the war, but it will face difficulty in how to end it.

Sammour points out that Trump's personality and his management style based on volatility and not relying entirely on institutions, along with Israeli pressures, make reading the American position more complex, as the transition between de-escalation and war remains a possibility.

Clash of wills between Washington and Tehran

Professor of Political Science and specialist in American affairs and international relations, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, confirms that what is happening between the United States and Iran represents a clash of wills between them, suggesting that the next stage will witness more military escalation, considering that this long-term conflict will not be resolved politically through negotiations, but by military force.

Al-Deek explains that there is a shift in the positions of a number of regional countries and countries of the world, especially NATO countries and Western Europe, towards the issue of closing the Strait of Hormuz and freedom of navigation, pointing out that the path opened by the Sultanate of Oman as a safe path in cooperation with the International Maritime Organization was targeted by Iran, which the United States considered a form of control, piracy, and aggression in the Gulf, which increases the possibilities of escalation.

He points out that Iranian statements regarding revenge, and the banners raised during the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei which included threats to target US President Donald Trump, along with intelligence information provided by Tel Aviv to Washington about possible Iranian plans to assassinate Trump, prompted the latter to announce that he had issued orders for a devastating military response if he was subjected to an assassination attempt.

Al-Deek points out that the fundamental question is not about whether a military clash will occur or not, but about the nature of this clash, and whether it will turn into an open war similar to the previous war, or will remain within the framework of limited strikes, localized operations, and targeting sensitive centers.

Expectations of controlled escalation in the short term

He expects that the remaining period of the next sixty days will witness a controlled escalation in the form of strike-for-strike and specific operations, but he expects in the long term the possibility of re-imposing the siege on Iran and opening the Strait of Hormuz by force by Washington and its European allies, and perhaps a return to a wide confrontation, amidst increasing Israeli pressures towards escalation.

Al-Deek explains that the proposed scenarios include the continuation of mutual strikes, or the region sliding into an open war during which the United States and Israel target Iranian energy centers and infrastructure, or an attempt to create internal unrest by supporting opposition groups, while the scenario of returning to negotiations remains weak, considering that Iran may use it to gain time and not to reach an agreement.

Personalization of the conflict

Al-Deek points out that the mutual statements regarding targeting Trump personally carry implications related to the "personalization of the conflict," so that targeting the Supreme Leader is met with targeting the American President, and through them, Iran aims to strengthen the internal front and confirm its ability to respond.

In contrast, Al-Deek believes that Trump's statements in response aim to strengthen American deterrence, and send a message that any targeting of the American leadership will be met with a harsh response, pointing out that these statements reveal the fragility of the memorandum of understanding between the two sides, and the possibility of the truce ending and a return to military operations, stressing that the region is facing a dangerous stage and that the drums of war are beating again.

Failure to achieve American goals

Writer and political analyst Labib Taha explains that the current escalation between the United States and Iran reflects a Western methodology based on trying to achieve goals through negotiations that were not achieved during the war, pointing out that Washington did not succeed in achieving its primary goals of overthrowing the Iranian regime or resolving the missile and nuclear files in the way it sought, which prompted it to try to interpret the ambiguous clauses in the understandings in a way that serves its interests.

He confirms that the continuation of the war faced internal pressures in the United States, in addition to international objections due to the absence of any UN mandate that would legitimize it.

Escalation as a negotiation tool

Taha explains that military escalation represents, from the perspective of the United States, part of the negotiation tools, as it seeks to conduct negotiations under pressure by continuing military strikes or using hard and soft power tools to push Iran to make concessions.

Taha points out that one of the reasons for the tension is Iran's feeling that the Strait of Hormuz card may be taken from it after the Omani initiative, explaining that the circulating proposals stipulate the resumption of work on the southern route of the strait through Omani territorial waters as it was before the war, while the northern route passing through Iranian waters requires coordination with Tehran without imposing fees, which the Sultanate of Oman rejects based on international law which considers the strait an international waterway open to navigation.

He explains that Iran's targeting of commercial ships came within its efforts to preserve the Hormuz card, while the United States considered this a violation of Article Four of the agreement concluded between the two sides last month, which stipulates ensuring freedom of navigation and opening the strait, while Tehran believes that the implementation of this commitment must be according to its conditions.

Taha points out that the nuclear file is still subject to negotiations and has not yet been resolved, noting that Washington also sought to empty the clause related to Lebanon of its content, although the agreement stipulated a cessation of military operations on all fronts, by overlooking daily Israeli violations and opening a new negotiating path so that the ceasefire would not be recorded as a gain for Iran.

New American conditions

Taha confirms that the United States has added new conditions that were not previously included, including what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised during his Gulf tour, linking investment and reconstruction in Iran to changing its regional behavior and missile and drone programs.

Taha believes that the massive funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the millions-strong marches that accompanied it came as a surprise to the United States and to US President Donald Trump, and contributed to its feeling that its goals had not been fully achieved.

Taha believes that the outbreak of a comprehensive war is still unlikely, but not impossible, explaining that any wide confrontation would be a "bone-breaking" event, as the United States would seek to end Iran, while Tehran believes that such a war would change the face of the region, stressing that the developments of the next stage will remain subject to the political and military decisions of both parties.

A high level of tension between the two sides

Professor of Political Science at Al-Quds Open University, Dr. Qusai Hamed, confirms that the mutual escalation between Iran and the United States, in light of Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's statements regarding revenge for his father's killing, and Trump's threat to annihilate Iran if he is personally targeted, reflects a high level of tension between the two sides, and confirms that the understanding that stopped the war was only a fragile agreement that was not based on solid political rules that would guarantee its continuation or establish a permanent de-escalation.

Hamed explains that the mutual rhetoric should not be viewed only from the perspective of personalizing the conflict, but as an indicator of the tense nature of the relationship between the two parties, pointing out that the agreement reached was an emergency agreement imposed by temporary circumstances and interests, especially for the United States, rather than a stable political settlement, which explains the return of political and military escalation shortly after the cessation of fighting.

The possibility of war returning has become likely

Hamed confirms that the developments of the current stage indicate that the possibility of war returning has become likely, given the mediators' inability so far to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table or contain the escalating tension.

He points out that there are two main scenarios; the first is the resumption of military confrontation, and although not at the same pace as the previous war, it may be more intense than the limited clashes that followed the first de-escalation.

The United States resorting to coercive diplomacy

Hamed points out that there is another scenario, which is the United States resorting again to the policy of "coercive diplomacy," by tightening economic sanctions and raising the level of military threat, with the aim of pressuring Iran and forcing it to back down from its positions and return to previous understandings or accept a new agreement on American terms.

Hamed confirms that the main dilemma currently lies in the faltering negotiation process, and the absence of indications of progress within the specified deadline, or Washington's ability to impose its conditions related to the nuclear file, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's ballistic missile program.

The region is closer to escalation

Hamed explains that the absence of tangible results from the negotiations pushes the two parties to exchange blows and military responses, suggesting that the region is closer to a new escalation than to a political agreement. Hamed believes that any potential understanding in the next stage will likely not go beyond the framework of the agreement reached after forty days of fighting.

Hamed believes that the scene is gradually moving towards more escalation, despite the unresolved possibilities of a comprehensive war, pointing out that any exceptional incident could lead to unprecedented responses, and open the door for the confrontation to expand to include Israel and American interests in the region, thus returning the crisis to its starting point and establishing a new stage of instability.

Multiple political messages

Writer, political researcher, and specialist in international relations, Nouman Tawfiq Al-Abed, believes that escalation remains the most prominent feature of the scene in the Gulf region, especially with regard to the Strait of Hormuz, pointing out that the mutual political rhetoric between Iran and the United States is witnessing a continuous escalation that reflects the continued state of tension between the two parties, in the absence of real indications of de-escalation.

According to Al-Abed, the statements of the new Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei that "revenge and retribution for the killing of his father Ali Khamenei is an inevitable demand," and that those responsible for the assassination will be held accountable, along with his call for "the free people of the world" to participate in this response, carry several political messages.

Al-Abed explains that the most prominent of these messages is the confirmation that the new Iranian leadership is still committed to the policy of response and non-retreat, and that the change in leadership has not changed the Iranian approach, but rather the new leadership appears to be more hardline than its predecessor and more committed to the policies followed by the former Supreme Leader.

Al-Abed explains that the second message of these statements is directed at opponents, and its purport is that the assassination of Iranian leaders will not prevent Tehran from responding, but may push it to adopt more hardline positions.

Assassination of the Supreme Leader strengthens the negotiating position

Al-Abed points out that the assassination of the first figure in the Iranian leadership did not push Iran to make concessions or surrender, but rather strengthened its adherence to its positions during negotiations, despite the long war and severe siege it was subjected to, noting that the exchange of threats between the two sides increases the possibilities of escalation, and pushes the countries of the region to raise security and diplomatic readiness levels.

Al-Abed believes that the Israeli factor is strongly present in this crisis, suggesting that Israel is behind many of the causes of tension, whether since the beginning of the war or through the intelligence information it provides to the United States, which he believes aims to fuel the crisis more than provide accurate information.

Al-Abed explains that Iranian statements also aim to show the cohesion of Iranian state institutions, and to confirm that the Supreme Leader is still managing the crisis, and that political and military institutions continue to implement his directives, which reflects the stability of the internal system's structure.

Disavowing previous understandings

In contrast, Al-Abed explains that Trump has become accustomed to issuing contradictory statements and tweets, considering that the threat of using force contradicts the memorandum of understanding that was concluded during the NATO meeting.

Al-Abed points out that part of the American administration, along with Israel, seeks to disavow previous understandings and retain the option of military strikes and siege without sliding into a comprehensive war.

Likelihood of continued American pressures and strikes

Al-Abed suggests that the United States will continue its current approach of strikes and pressures, while avoiding a wide war that would drain its capabilities and lead to an expansion of the conflict and damage to the global economy.

Al-Abed points out that this scenario may continue until Tehran accepts American proposals, or Washington is subjected to regional and international pressures that push it to return to adhering to the memorandum of understanding or reaching a permanent agreement that gives it, from its point of view, a better negotiating position.