The Orientalist assessed the risks of escalation between the United States and Iran
The statements of US President Donald Trump about sending a large naval group to the shores of Iran should be considered primarily as an element of a strategy of deterrence and pressure aimed at returning the initiative to the negotiating table. This was stated on January 23 by political analyst Dmitry Brije to Izvestia.
According to him, direct US military intervention can lead to large-scale consequences for the entire Middle East. First of all, Bridge noted, even a limited strike could provoke a chain reaction and retaliatory actions against American facilities in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf countries, as well as increase tensions around Israel.
"In addition, energy and logistics will suffer, because the oil and transportation insurance market reacts to the risk of escalation itself, and the likelihood of disruptions in shipping, including in the Strait of Hormuz, increases. This affects prices and supply chains," the political scientist explained.
Separately, he pointed out the possible political effect of military pressure. Brydje recalled that an external threat often leads to the consolidation of society around the government, which can strengthen law enforcement agencies and complicate the protest dynamics within the country. In his opinion, attempts to influence internal processes in Iran through forceful pressure, as a rule, do not achieve their stated goals.
The political scientist also outlined several scenarios for the further development of the situation. The first involves a show of force without a direct strike — increased sanctions, cyber measures, military exercises and targeted operations in order to force Tehran to make concessions.
The second option is limited strikes against targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but even this format carries a high risk of uncontrolled escalation. The third, most dangerous scenario is related to a large-scale conflict, which may involve proxy structures, drones, missiles and cyber attacks, which threatens to destabilize the entire region and especially the Persian Gulf countries.
Speaking about Iran's possible reaction, Bridge noted that the most likely tactic would be symmetrical deterrence: demonstration exercises, strengthening the naval missile component, activating allied groups and cyber operations while trying to avoid a direct clash with the United States so as not to give rise to a large-scale military campaign.
The expert added that, in his assessment, the Iranian leadership is aware of the need for reforms and diplomatic efforts, since the country's internal stability is closely linked to external pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv. Against this background, Mr. Bridge stressed, mediation efforts by third countries are intensifying.
"In such cycles of tension, the key role is played by countries that maintain working communication channels with both Washington and Tehran — Oman, Qatar, Russia, as well as a number of regional capitals," the political scientist noted.
According to him, the behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts of the Arab states indicate that the window for de-escalation remains open, but remains extremely narrow and depends on the parties' ability to get out of the crisis without losing face and serious political consequences.
Trump said on January 22 that the United States was closely monitoring the situation in Iran and was sending significant military forces, including ships, to the region. According to him, Washington warned Tehran of a possible strike if the executions continued in the country, after which the Iranian authorities canceled them.
All important news is on the Izvestia channel in the MAX messenger.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
