Shafaq News

The Middle East is facing a phase of heightened uncertainty as relations between the United States and Iran approach a critical juncture. Amid growing speculation over rapid, precision US military action against key Iranian sites, analysts speaking to Shafaq News agree on one core point: Washington is seeking to intensify pressure on Tehran while stopping short of actions that could unravel the Iranian state and unsettle the wider region.

This balancing act unfolds as Iran grapples with sustained domestic unrest and an intensified security crackdown, developments that add a volatile internal dimension to Washington’s external pressure campaign. While the unrest is largely domestic in origin, several experts argue that Washington views it as a strategic lever, one that can amplify pressure on the Iranian leadership without committing to a comprehensive military confrontation.

Calculated Pressure, Not Total War

A dominant theme across expert assessments is that any US military move would be tightly calibrated. Political and security analyst Munir Adib argues that Washington is preparing for “swift and precise” strikes designed to degrade Iran’s missile capabilities, air defenses, and what remains of its nuclear infrastructure. He suggested that the scope of US action could go further, “targeting Iranian leaders, the president, and even the supreme leader. There may even be a special operation similar to what happened in Venezuela with the arrest of its president.”

At the same time, he cautions that “all scenarios remain possible, and Iran’s response will be the decisive factor,” stressing that the Middle East itself is not a direct party to the confrontation. While Gulf states are working to contain escalation and prioritize dialogue, Adib notes that regional uncertainty remains high, with signs pointing toward a potential US operation against Tehran.

Even within this hardened outlook, Adib places clear limits on escalation —a caution that resonates across a wider circle of regional analysts. The goal, he says, would be to weaken Iran’s strategic posture, not to plunge the country into uncontrollable chaos.

That restraint reflects a broader regional concern: that destabilizing Iran outright could prove far more dangerous than containing it under sustained pressure.

Building on this assessment, Omani political researcher Habib al-Hadi points to signs of heightened US military readiness while underscoring the narrowing of Washington’s options. However, he notes that “the failure of internal unrest to fracture Iran’s governing structures has narrowed Washington’s options.” In this reading, military strikes become a tool to “resize” Iranian power rather than guarantee regime change, an outcome that regional states fear could unleash widespread disorder.

Read more: US strike on Iran possible as protest deaths surge

The Protest Factor: Leverage With Limits

Jordanian analyst Kamal al-Zghoul cautions against overestimating the role of Iran’s protest movement in US calculations. While Washington may seek to exploit internal dissent, he argues that “a decisive military campaign would require a viable alternative authority capable of controlling state institutions” —something that has yet to emerge.

In the absence of a credible internal alternative, al-Zghoul and other analysts argue that Washington is more likely to lean on indirect tools —cyber operations, intelligence pressure, and selective strikes — rather than a decisive military campaign.

What a Strike Might Look Like

Within these strategic constraints, security experts outline how a limited US strike might be structured in practice. Adnan al-Kinani expects any strike to focus on strategic weapons sites, ammunition depots, and military headquarters to create the perception of a weakened central authority. “Such an approach would aim to disrupt Iran’s operational capacity while stopping short of dismantling the state.”

Military analyst Alaa al-Nashou’ suggests that command-and-control centers linked to both the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would be primary targets. “Washington may also seek to degrade Iran’s regional networks, extending pressure to allied groups in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon” —an indication that the battlefield would not be confined to Iranian territory.

Tehran’s Likely Response

Even under a restrained US approach, analysts widely agree that Tehran would not absorb a strike without responding. Several warn that Tehran’s response would likely be rapid and asymmetric. Al-Kinani predicts that any Iranian counterattack would be “non-traditional,” potentially targeting sensitive locations inside Israel while avoiding conventional battlefield engagement.

Political analyst Hazem Ayad frames the issue more strategically: “The design of the initial US strike will signal Washington’s political endgame.” A limited operation, in his opinion, could open space for containment and negotiation, while a broader campaign would suggest a willingness to risk systemic breakdown, an option Ayad views as unlikely given regional sensitivities.

Regional Reverberations

The consequences, however, would extend well beyond Washington and Tehran, with the wider region poised to absorb the shockwaves of any escalation, as writer and analyst Ihab al-Kayali expects Iran’s response to be “rapid and more expansive,” potentially targeting US military bases used to launch attacks on Iran, including those in Iraq, Turkiye, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Such a trajectory, he cautions, could push the confrontation beyond a limited exchange, raising the risk of a regional war that might spiral into a broader international conflict involving multiple actors.

“Ankara, in particular, views escalation with deep concern. Turkiye fears spillover into Iraq and Syria, disruptions to energy flows, and broader instability along its southern borders. Similar anxieties resonate across the Gulf, where governments have quietly pushed for de-escalation and dialogue.”

Energy markets represent another critical fault line because any sustained confrontation risks threatening shipping lanes and infrastructure, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, a scenario that would reverberate globally. This economic dimension reinforces the argument that all parties have incentives to keep hostilities contained.

A Message, Not a War?

Reinforcing this interpretation, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and State Mark Kimmitt frames any prospective strike as deterrent signaling rather than preparation for open war. He anticipates targeted airstrikes against leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij forces involved in suppressing protests, framing such action as a political-military message rather than the opening salvo of a regional war.

Taken together, these assessments suggest a shared conclusion among experts: the United States may be preparing to act, but its objective is not conquest or regime collapse. Instead, Washington appears intent on reshaping Iran’s strategic behavior through forceful signaling, accepting escalation risks while striving to prevent a cascade into full-scale regional conflict.

The coming days or even hours, analysts agree, will hinge on two variables: the scope of any US action and the speed and scale of Iran’s response.

Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.