Amid the rapidly intensifying situation in the Middle East, international media are documenting one of the most tense phases of confrontation in recent years. Strikes, exchanges of missile attacks, an increased military presence, and sharp political statements are all shaping a new regional security reality. At the center is the confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran—one that is increasingly viewed not as a localized crisis, but as a potential turning point for the global system as a whole.

Western and Middle Eastern analytical outlets note that the current escalation is moving beyond the привычной “shadow war” and is taking on the characteristics of open military confrontation. Heightened military activity in the Persian Gulf, growing threats to energy infrastructure, and risks to international transport routes are raising concerns not only within the region but far beyond it. At the same time, diplomatic channels—including mediation efforts by several countries—have yet to produce breakthroughs, reinforcing the sense of a prolonged crisis.

CASPIA presents an interview with David Felsen, an American political scientist holding a PhD from the University of Oxford.

– How do you assess the causes of the current escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran? Were these strikes truly inevitable, or could they have been prevented?

-The conflict with Iran has emerged as a result of deteriorating conditions in the region. On the one hand, we are witnessing multiple failures of deterrence and persistent concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, its expanding missile capabilities, its continued support for proxy actors across the region, and its ability to strike U.S. bases and American allies such as Israel and the Gulf states. On the other hand, given the ongoing large-scale buildup of U.S. forces in the region, a certain degree of inevitability to military action has taken shape. Moreover, for months—if not years—there has been behind-the-scenes coordination between the United States and Israel on the Iran issue. Finally, potential avenues for preventing confrontation, such as informal negotiations with Iran and third-party mediation, have not delivered sufficiently rapid results from the U.S. perspective.

– What were the key objectives of these strikes from the standpoint of U.S. and Israeli strategic interests? Were they aimed solely at military targets, or did they also include political goals (such as pressuring Iran’s leadership)?

-The officially stated objectives were to weaken Iran’s nuclear and conventional strike capabilities, as well as its command-and-control systems, while limiting its ability to mount an effective response. Politically, the United States not only signaled that Iran had failed to meet demands regarding its nuclear program, but also demonstrated support for a full regime change in Iran. President Trump stated that the Iranian people themselves had recently protested against a government that harshly suppressed public demonstrations. Thus, the objectives were both military and political.

– Should we expect the conflict to expand beyond Iran and Israel? For example, direct involvement of other regional actors (the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, etc.)?

-Yes, the conflict has already extended to other parts of the region. Iran has launched missiles at targets in Israel, as well as at several Gulf states—U.S. partners—and at American military bases in the region. Iran appears to be attempting to provoke a broader regional conflict, although it has not yet succeeded. Gulf states are likely to limit their involvement to airspace defense, diplomatic efforts, and the protection of their own resources. However, the risk of miscalculation and escalation at any point in the conflict remains ever-present.

– How do you see the situation developing further?

-The United States and Israel are already on high alert, preparing for retaliatory missile and drone attacks on their bases in Israel and across the Middle East. Their priority is intercepting incoming threats and striking Iranian infrastructure to degrade its offensive capabilities. At the same time, both countries are carefully calibrating their actions to avoid uncontrolled escalation. They are also aware that a prolonged conflict affecting maritime routes and supply chains would lead to regional and global instability, potentially triggering shocks in energy markets and increasing pressure on governments in the region to bring hostilities to an end.

– How will current developments affect the likelihood of further escalation?

-As noted, there is a risk that the conflict could spread across multiple theaters, along with the possibility of unintended incidents involving mass casualties. However, the likelihood of full internationalization remains relatively low—unless major global powers become more directly involved or a large-scale energy or logistical crisis disrupts global economic activity.

– What could this escalation mean for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and other diplomatic efforts?

-In the short term, the strikes are likely to freeze negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, as Tehran will prioritize retaliation and regime security over concessions. Over time, however, a significant weakening of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities could push it back to the negotiating table in pursuit of sanctions relief and security guarantees. Conversely, it may also drive Tehran toward a strategy of “nuclear deterrence” as a protective mechanism.

– How will the conflict affect Iranian society as a whole? Will it trigger internal pressure on the government or, conversely, strengthen it?

-This is a complex question, but several dynamics can be anticipated. Large-scale strikes and losses may initially produce a “rally around the flag” effect within Iranian society. At the same time, they will intensify economic pressure and social challenges. Whether this translates into increased pressure on the regime will depend on how legitimate and resilient the government remains after the attacks. Military nationalism may bolster support in the short term, but prolonged hardship and suffering could eventually reignite protests in an increasingly weakened state.

– How do you assess current perceptions of the conflict within American society? Is support for military action growing, or does a preference for de-escalation prevail? What are the long-term strategic objectives of the United States in the Middle East, and has its position on Iran shifted following the latest strikes?

-Interestingly, just prior to the strikes, public opinion in the United States leaned more toward opposing military action than supporting it. Among Democrats, opposition was higher than among Republicans. In the coming days, a “rally around the flag” effect and a rise in support for military action are likely, although such support may decline if casualties increase.

The long-term objectives of the United States in the Middle East remain focused on creating a more secure environment for American bases and allies. Washington seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, ensure freedom of navigation, maintain stable energy markets, and safeguard resilient supply chains. The key shift in U.S. policy lies in a move toward more direct confrontation and coercion of adversaries and “problematic actors” worldwide, rather than relying primarily on sanctions and deterrence.