By: Dr. Lana Atiyat Al-Fayez, the media expert.
For decades, the relationship between Washington and Tehran has been characterized by ideological and political hostility. However, the intertwining and multiplicity of issues have been dominated by the nuclear program, navigation in the Red Sea, the war on Gaza, and undoubtedly the security and the Israeli presence.
Despite the escalation of tensions in recent months, the situation still fluctuates in the gray area precisely defined as (war-and-no-war), due to military calculations intertwined with political pressures.
Undoubtedly, the influence in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, and international navigation, as well as the nuclear program and economic sanctions, all these have fueled the conflict between the parties. Yet, this conflict remains mostly an indirect confrontation managed through instruments of pressure rather than direct engagement.
From a strategic situation assessment perspective,
Washington manages this conflict through a military presence that acts like a shield with bases and aircraft carriers and, when necessary, precise, calculated strikes in addition to economic sanctions. Similarly, Tehran uses tools of indirect conflict, such as pressuring navigation in the Gulf and the Red Sea or through proxy wars and its arms, which are currently in a state of severe frailty, meaning managing the conflict under the threshold of war.
Both parties, Washington and Tehran, are currently avoiding direct confrontation, settling instead for exchanging military messages, but scenarios involving the possibility of continued controlled escalation, meaning confrontation within a bounded and defined scope which might include U.S. strikes on Iran-aligned factions met by indirect Iranian responses through proxies, coincide with heightened media and political tensions.
As for the more likely scenario of military skirmish, it would be short-lived if Washington targets sensitive Iranian sites or in case of American casualties, but this military confrontation would be here (direct-limited).
And what about Israel??
No doubt the nuclear program poses an existential threat to Israel and is a very sensitive and dangerous factor, but Israel's movement in this conflict remains tied to the green light from Washington, which to this moment has no desire to enter into a full-scale direct war.
Because intentions alone are not enough to ignite a war but sometimes misjudgment, which often raises the level of danger between the parties, especially in light of factors including multiple fronts from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, the Gaza war, weakening the ability to control and increasing the likelihood of an Israeli role as an accelerating factor, and also the likelihood that Israel may carry out preemptive strikes thereby imposing (de facto policies), Israel will attempt to drag Washington into the confrontation and destroy U.S. control.
Among Tehran and Washington, the factors of danger are multiple, as every time the battlefields multiply and the communication channels recede overstepping the red lines, also the accumulation of field realities that may weaken the deterrence bases, all these factors will accelerate the moment of slippage and raise the level of danger.
But even at this moment, both parties of the conflict bet on avoiding entering into full-scale direct confrontation; this conflict to this moment awaits a hasty American decision at a moment of tension that cannot tolerate misjudgment.
