The escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel marks a transition to a new phase of regional confrontation, combining elements of both conventional and hybrid warfare. Direct military actions, with the involvement of the United States, are unfolding primarily at a distance and have already extended beyond a local crisis, affecting global energy and geopolitical balances.
Orkhan Yolchuyev, director of the CASPIA Analytical Center and political analyst, told ARB TV live that the current war is fundamentally different from traditional conflicts and should be considered largely hybrid in nature. According to him, the targeted elimination of Iran’s military and political leaders is part of this hybrid strategy, actively pursued by the United States and Israel, who aim to achieve results through the removal of key figures.
Commenting on the death of Larijani, Yolchuyev noted that it would represent a significant loss for Iran. Despite his conservatism, Larijani had a pragmatic approach to relations with the West and a Western education. Moreover, according to the expert, he bore substantial responsibility for managing the Israeli-Iranian confrontation.
Yolchuyev also pointed to a leadership gap within the Iranian government: should such figures be lost, they are likely to be replaced by even more hardline conservatives, with whom dialogue would be significantly more difficult.
The analyst added that, despite internal challenges, Iran continues to demonstrate its willingness to fight and retains substantial missile capabilities, including long-range ballistic missiles. In his assessment, the United States and Israel have partially achieved their objectives — weakening the so-called “axis of resistance” and striking at Iran’s nuclear program — yet they have not been able to fully neutralize Iran’s missile potential. Furthermore, available data suggests that Iran is currently employing only about half of its capabilities.
Yolchuyev believes that reaching an agreement in the near term is unlikely, as the space for compromise is extremely limited. At the same time, the United States, unlike Israel and Iran, may have a greater incentive to end the conflict due to internal political pressures, particularly in the run-up to upcoming elections and the fragile partisan balance.
He emphasized that the war has multiple dimensions: beyond the direct Israel-Iran confrontation, there is internal political tension within the United States. Additionally, the conflict has become a testing ground for new technologies, economic mechanisms, and social models, including the use of artificial intelligence in military operations.
Yolchuyev also highlighted global economic risks, particularly the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which could seriously affect global energy markets and supply chains. According to the expert, the U.S. strategy was initially designed for a rapid conflict (blitzkrieg), but the prolongation of the war is turning it into a war of attrition similar to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This raises the risk of the U.S. becoming embroiled in a prolonged war with serious consequences.

In conclusion, the political analyst outlined two main scenarios: either a currently unlikely achievement of a negotiated settlement, or an expansion of the conflict involving additional countries. He stressed that China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, could play a key role in compelling Tehran to the negotiating table, although their actual intentions remain uncertain. Yolchuyev summarized that this conflict extends far beyond Iran itself and is closely tied to the struggle for control over global logistics and energy corridors, making it part of a broader geopolitical confrontation.