War in its originality: Iran vows an unplanned response

Dr. Saad Nimr: Iran's assertion that its allies will engage in any large-scale military confrontation with the United States increases the likelihood of an unprecedented escalation.
Khalil Shaheen: The rapid developments following the US airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities open the door to a series of complex scenarios.
Nabhan Khreisha: The Houthis have the will to carry out retaliatory responses, including launching missiles and drones toward US bases in the Gulf.
Dr. Mohammed Al-Tamawi: The Houthis' targeting of American interests or those of its naval allies could push Washington toward a broad military intervention in Yemen.
Noman Abed: Direct US intervention represents a dangerous escalation that could lead to a comprehensive regional war, with the Houthis declaring their readiness to engage in a confrontation.
Imad Musa: Washington is making a grave mistake in its assessment of the Yemeni and Iranian realities, as both countries enjoy deep internal social solidity that is difficult to penetrate.

Following the US airstrike early Sunday morning against Iranian nuclear facilities, the region has entered a critical phase that threatens a wider conflagration in the Middle East. The Houthis, Tehran's most prominent allies in Yemen, have announced their withdrawal from the verbal agreement with Washington, threatening to target US ships and bases and threaten navigation through the vital Bab al-Mandab Strait.
In separate interviews with "I", writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors confirm that the escalation against Iran and the targeting of its nuclear facilities by Washington puts US bases deployed in the Gulf within range of missiles from Iran and its allies. Meanwhile, Tehran asserts that the confrontation will not be limited to it alone, but will include multiple fronts, amid warnings of the crisis slipping not only into a regional conflict but into an unprecedented international conflict, especially with hints from China and Russia and the possibility of other countries intervening on the front line. Meanwhile, there may be scenarios for de-escalation that are not absent from the scene.


Attacking Iranian nuclear facilities is a dangerous turning point

Dr. Saad Nimr, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, believes that the US airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities represents a dangerous turning point that could push the entire region into a broader regional confrontation and possibly a potential world war.
Nimr explains that statements by forces allied with Iran, most notably the Houthi Ansar Allah group, were clear and explicit in their threat to respond to any US attack on Iran, which is what actually happened. The Houthi armed forces spokesman announced that his group considered itself free of the verbal agreement with the United States and would engage in the confrontation alongside Tehran.
In the same context, Nimr points to the advanced positions of both the Lebanese Hezbollah and other armed factions in Iraq and Yemen, which have affirmed that they will not stand idly by if Iran is subjected to a large-scale attack.
Nimr points out that Iran, for its part, has confirmed that its allies in the region will be part of any large-scale military confrontation with the United States, increasing the likelihood of an unprecedented escalation.
Nimr emphasizes that the danger of escalation does not stop at Iran's borders, but extends to the entire regional geography, as US military bases deployed in the Gulf region are likely to be subjected to direct attacks by Iran and its allies. He notes that these bases are within the range of Iranian medium-range missiles, making them potential targets in any future military escalation. He also notes that the Bab al-Mandab Strait could be closed, which would threaten global shipping and trade.


The repercussions of the escalation may extend beyond the region.

Nimr points out that the repercussions of this escalation could extend beyond the region, as Iran's collapse or widespread attacks would impact international balances. He points out that neither China nor Russia would stand idly by if their Iranian ally collapsed, which could open the door to a larger international conflict involving major powers such as Pakistan and perhaps other countries.
Comparing the Iranian situation to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Nimr emphasizes the radical difference in the equation, explaining that Iran is a larger country in terms of area and population, and possesses superior military capabilities and combat equipment, in addition to its difficult geographical terrain, which would make any US ground invasion a risky venture.
Nimr expects the United States at this stage to rely on remote airstrikes without engaging in a ground invasion similar to what occurred in Iraq. All scenarios remain open, while anticipating the nature of Iran's response to this American aggression.


The nature of the Iranian and regional response cannot be predicted.

For his part, writer and political analyst Khalil Shaheen asserts that the rapid developments following the US airstrike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities open the door to a series of complex scenarios. At this early stage, it is impossible to accurately predict the nature of the Iranian and regional response to this escalation, most notably the Houthis' stance on targeting US interests in the region.
Shaheen points out that the Houthis, in principle, have previously declared that they will not stand idly by if any Arab or Islamic country is targeted. This places them in a position likely to engage in retaliatory responses against American interests, especially given their declared position on preventing Israeli ships from passing through the Red Sea.
However, Shaheen questions whether the Houthis' response will be limited to targeting American ships alone, or whether it will expand to include other vessels belonging to countries allied with the United States that may later engage in escalation, particularly in light of recent British positions, whose Prime Minister has hinted that his country is prepared to join the United States in any confrontation with Iran.

Targeting US bases or aircraft carriers

According to Shaheen, the expected scenarios depend primarily on Iran's response, as Tehran may consider a failure to respond an affront to its sovereignty, potentially prompting it to target US bases or aircraft carriers in the region. This could ignite a snowball of mutual escalation that would be difficult to contain.
In contrast, Shaheen notes that it is not unlikely that Iran will adopt a measured and limited response, as it did previously when it targeted the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq, in a manner that did not result in direct human casualties. This opens the door to the possibility of later reaching a bilateral agreement with Washington that would prevent the two sides from sliding into a full-scale war.
Shaheen points to an approach similar to the undeclared agreement the United States reached with the Houthis previously, whereby US airstrikes on the Houthis ceased in exchange for their halting attacks on US ships, though they continued to target Israeli vessels on occasion. Shaheen suggests that if Iran follows this path, the Houthis may follow suit, adjusting their response to the pace of Iranian escalation with Washington.

Closure of the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab

If the confrontation between the United States, Iran, and Israel escalates, Shaheen believes that it will not be limited to targeting American bases or Israeli interests alone, but could extend to more dangerous actions, such as Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. This could prompt the Houthis to launch parallel actions in the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea, threatening international shipping traffic passing through these two strategic straits. This could prompt Washington to form a new international coalition to confront this escalating threat.
Despite all these scenarios, Shaheen believes that the Houthi role will remain relatively secondary in the larger escalation equation, as the greatest risks for Israel and the United States are concentrated on more sensitive fronts, such as the northern front with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the forces allied with Iran in Iraq.
According to Shaheen, the Israelis believe the Houthi threat remains limited, given Yemen's geographic distance from Israel and their ability to absorb the size of missiles that could be launched from Yemen. The greater danger posed by the possibility of Israel being exposed to a barrage of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones should a full-scale confrontation erupt.
Shaheen asserts that, should the escalation continue, Israel's priority will remain focused on destabilizing the Iranian regime, with subsequent priority given to the northern front in the event of an escalation by Hezbollah, followed by the US forces in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Houthi issue will remain linked to broader developments that could become more significant if the movements in Bab al-Mandab escalate into a dangerous phase that threatens international navigation and calls for more intense US strikes on Yemen. This is despite the difficulty of achieving decisive results against the Houthis due to the rugged terrain and their widespread presence in the country.


Attention is particularly focused on Yemen.


Journalist Nabhan Khreisha asserts that the US airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites early yesterday morning represent a dangerous turning point in the escalating war between Israel and Iran. The US has entered the conflict directly and violently, a move that threatens to expand the confrontation to multiple regional fronts and could spiral out of control.
According to Khreisha, this US military intervention reflects a clear political and security message that Washington will not hesitate to defend Israel, which views Iran's nuclear program as a direct existential threat.
However, Khreisha points out that the potential Iranian response may not be in the same place or manner, as Tehran possesses its own tools to manage the confrontation through its network of allies spread across multiple arenas in the region.
Khreisha explains that attention is particularly focused on Yemen, where the Houthis possess not only the military capability but also the political will to carry out retaliatory strikes on behalf of Iran. These could include launching ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and possibly Bahrain and Qatar. This is a message aimed at raising the cost of confrontation for Washington and its Gulf allies. Further escalating the situation is the Houthis' announcement that they are no longer bound by the agreement with the Americans.


Catastrophic consequences for financial markets and supply chains

Khreisha points out that oil facilities and fuel tanks in these countries could, in turn, become potential targets in this indirect escalation.
On the maritime front, Khreisha believes the Houthi group will likely act on its longstanding threats to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait, either by targeting US warships or attacking oil tankers passing off the Yemeni coast.
Khreisha asserts that any disruption to this critical waterway, through which approximately 12% of global maritime trade passes, would have disastrous consequences for financial markets and international supply chains, making this scenario one of the most dangerous potential developments in the current crisis.
Khreisha explains that Iran, for its part, holds the most dangerous card in this conflict: its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the main artery for transporting oil and gas from the Gulf to global markets.
Khreisha believes that merely threatening such a measure would shake energy markets and send oil prices to unprecedented levels, while its actual implementation could trigger a severe global energy crisis that would prompt major powers to engage in direct military intervention to prevent a catastrophe.

The situation is not like the invasion of Iraq.

Despite the scale of the escalation and the seriousness of the situation, Khreisha believes the scenario is not similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Despite Washington's willingness to use air power to protect its allies and deter what it considers an existential threat to Israel, the option of a full-scale ground invasion of Iran faces significant obstacles.
Khreisha points out that Tehran possesses a more complex security and military structure than Saddam Hussein's regime. Its intelligence agencies are spread throughout the region and it maintains a network of military alliances with armed factions in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, making any ground invasion a costly and protracted adventure.
Khreisha points to international dynamics. Russia and China, as strategic allies of Iran, will not remain neutral in the event of a large-scale US ground attack, threatening to transform the conflict into a proxy war between the world's major powers, amid the difficult domestic situation facing the United States.
Domestically, Khreisha explains that American public opinion does not support foreign military adventures and prefers to focus efforts on addressing inflation and the energy crisis, at a time when Congress is deeply divided over authorizations for the use of force.
Khreisha asserts that Washington will continue its policy of concentrated airstrikes and intelligence and military support to its allies, while avoiding involvement in a ground invasion. Meanwhile, the option of toppling the Iranian regime remains contingent on sudden developments on the ground or diplomatic settlements that could redraw the map of regional and international calculations.


Repercussions affecting the global economic and political systems

For his part, Dr. Mohammed Al-Tamawi, a researcher in political economy and international relations, warns that if the Houthis carry out their threats to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait and target US ships or forces, they will drag the region into a dangerous juncture, the repercussions of which will extend beyond Yemen's borders to affect the entire global economic and political system.
Al-Tamawi points out that the Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which more than 12% of global trade passes, constitutes a vital artery that global markets cannot afford to disrupt, especially given the rise in oil prices, primarily due to escalating tensions in the Gulf region.
Al-Tamawi believes that any actual or ongoing threat to close the strait could lead to an unprecedented spike in oil prices, possibly exceeding $120 per barrel, with a simultaneous increase in shipping and insurance costs and disruption to food and energy supply chains. This would have a direct impact on European and Asian markets that rely on these vital sea lanes.


Ground operations against Houthi-controlled areas

Al-Tamawi warns that targeting US interests or those of its naval allies by the Houthis could push Washington toward a broad military intervention in Yemen.
Al-Tamawi explains that such an intervention could bring military operations in Yemen back to the forefront of the conflict with greater violence, possibly extending to ground operations against Houthi-controlled areas or launching joint attacks in coordination with regional US allies.
Al-Tamawi believes that this scenario would open the door to broader interventions by factions aligned with Iran in Iraq and Lebanon, exacerbating tensions and further complicating the entire regional landscape.
Al-Tamawi discusses the risks of state collapse in several fragile Arab arenas, pointing to Yemen as a clear example of a fractured state, where control is divided between the internationally recognized government and the Houthis, who control vast areas without cohesive official institutions.


Fear of the disintegration of Yemen and Lebanon

Al-Tamawi points out that the outbreak of a comprehensive war or the collapse of humanitarian and economic support could push Yemen toward complete disintegration, with the emergence of jihadist or regional forces that could fill the void created by the absence of a central state.
In a similar reading of the Lebanese situation, Al-Tamawi points out that Lebanon is already facing a profound financial and institutional collapse, while Hezbollah remains the most prominent and influential military force.
Al-Tamawi asserts that any escalation between Hezbollah and Israel could lead to further disintegration of the Lebanese state, given its inability to control the situation or provide basic services.
In Iran, Al-Tamawi believes the situation is more complex. The central state remains resilient, but it faces mounting challenges due to the ongoing targeting of its economic and sovereign facilities, along with internal security breaches and growing popular discontent. These challenges could gradually weaken the regime if the simultaneous military and economic pressure continues.
Al-Tamawi warns that the absence of political solutions, coupled with escalating military confrontations, is pushing the region to the brink of an abyss that could see a cascading political and economic collapse.


Netanyahu is leading the region to the brink of regional explosion.

Writer, political researcher, and international relations expert Noman Abed says that Benjamin Netanyahu's government's insistence on a military solution in all conflicts involving Israel, whether in the Palestinian conflict or with Iran, is pushing the region to the brink of a regional and perhaps global explosion.
Abed believes that the Israeli occupation mentality, based on continued settlement expansion and the denial of Palestinian rights, coupled with its aggressive policies in the region, makes regional peace impossible in the absence of any real political horizon.
Abed explains that since before October 7, 2023, Israel has been actively seeking to drag the United States into a military confrontation with Tehran, exploiting the Iranian nuclear program as a pretext. Although Israel itself is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal and refuses international inspection or signing nuclear non-proliferation agreements, it has been exerting constant pressure to halt the Iranian nuclear project. Instead of curbing Israeli escalation, Washington has given the green light and provided Tel Aviv with all the military and logistical support it needs.

The fragility of the Israeli home front

Abed points out that Washington is well aware that Israel is incapable of waging a long war alone, both due to Iran's advanced military capabilities and the fragility of the Israeli home front in the face of Iranian missile and drone strikes.
Therefore, according to Abed, direct US intervention constitutes a dangerous escalation that could open the region to a full-scale regional war, especially with the Houthi group in Yemen declaring their readiness to engage in the battle, whether by targeting US interests or threatening navigation in the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Abed believes that continued aggression may push major powers like China and Russia to refrain from standing idly by if the Iranian regime is threatened with collapse. This could lead to the confrontation escalating into a multi-sided global conflict, given the worsening economic and political fragility in Tehran and the increasing intelligence breaches by Israel and other Western agencies, which should have been addressed before escalation.
Abed asserts that the continued military escalation against Iran, coupled with the absence of a political solution, poses a catastrophic threat to the region, whose repercussions could extend beyond the Middle East to threaten the entire international system.
Regarding Yemen, Abed explains that the Houthis do not represent a cohesive state in the traditional sense. Rather, they control parts of Yemeni territory, in contrast to an internationally recognized government that is unable to fully assert its sovereignty.
Abed points out that any collapse of the Houthis would not necessarily mean the legitimate government regaining control over the entire country, but would rather push Yemen toward further chaos and a multiplicity of forces controlling the ground.


The scene is heading towards further sharp escalation.

For his part, writer and political analyst Imad Moussa asserts that the US airstrike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities early Sunday morning marks the beginning of a US plan to impose a nuclear agreement on Iran similar to the Libyan agreement, which includes the complete dismantling of nuclear facilities, ultimately leading to the overthrow of the ruling regime and plunging the country into internal chaos.
Musa explains that this US aggression against Tehran has unleashed dangerous developments in the region, most notably that the Houthis are no longer bound by the undeclared verbal agreement they concluded with the administration of US President Donald Trump.
Musa believes the situation is heading toward further escalation, amid a complex geopolitical equation that could present China and Russia with two bitter choices: either negotiate and bargain with Washington, led by the Iranian regime, or face the reality of American tanks arriving on their immediate borders should the situation explode.
According to Musa's assessment, the Houthis will continue targeting warships and commercial vessels in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, with the aim of expanding the battlefield and imposing operational restrictions on US military intervention in the region.
Musa asserts that the Houthis are well aware of the possibility of US military responses that could affect civilians, but they are unconcerned by this, given the nature of their combat doctrine.
Musa emphasizes that Washington is making a grave mistake in its assessment of the Yemeni and Iranian realities, as both countries possess deep internal social solidity that is difficult to penetrate with missiles or military pressure.
Musa explains that there is a strong social and religious cohesion within Yemen and Iran that makes their people psychologically and ideologically prepared to endure great sacrifices, something that American strategy finds difficult to dismantle easily through military force.