Shipping lanes, energy flows, and oil markets would be at the center of the conflict, even if not directly targeted

Mounir Shehadeh, west Asian affairs analyst

Question: The conflict between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran has existed since the very beginning of the Islamic Revolution. In your opinion, what are the roots of this confrontation over the past several decades?

Gen. Shehadeh: The conflict between Iran and the US since the Islamic Revolution has never been purely ideological. It has fundamentally been driven by interests and the pursuit of domination. Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iran removed itself from the strategic framework Washington had designed for the region. That framework required a central, subordinate state tasked with controlling the Persian Gulf and guaranteeing the security of the Zionist regime. Iran’s exit from this equation represented, above all, a break in US dominance rather than a direct military threat.

The primary drivers of this conflict include the loss of Iran as a key pillar of US regional influence after 1979. This loss created a dangerous precedent that could encourage other countries to seek freedom from US domination. Another factor is Iran’s refusal to recognize the Zionist regime or to accept its integration as a legitimate regional reality, at a time when the US considers the security of the Zionist regime an integral part of its own national security. In addition, the emergence of the Zionist regime as an expansionist occupying power, relying on military supremacy rather than diplomatic agreements, has meant that any opposing regional power is automatically perceived as a threat.

From Washington’s perspective, the source of instability lies in the fact that Iran has become an independent regional actor that makes its political and military decisions outside American directives—something that imperial powers find intolerable. In essence, the US is in conflict with Iran not merely because Iran is considered dangerous, but because Iran is not subservient. Concurrently, the Zionist regime views any independent power possessing advanced and destructive missile capabilities as a long-term threat to its own expansionist project.

Question: American officials have openly issued threats against Tehran and once again raised the military option that they have consistently put on the table. If Washington moves toward acting on these threats, will we witness a unified Resistance Front coalesce in support of the Islamic Republic?

Gen. Shehadeh: The American rhetoric regarding a military option is not new; it has often served as a tool of pressure rather than a concrete war plan. However, any actual attack would create an entirely different reality. Were Iran to be struck, it would not fight alone—not merely out of solidarity within the Resistance Front with Iran, but because targeting Iran would mean shattering the existing regional balance.

What is known as the Resistance Front is not a centralized command center, but a network of groups bound by shared interests. Each would perceive an attack on Iran as a direct threat to its own existence. The response would not be conventional. Multiple fronts would react in varied and calculated ways, with actions carefully calibrated to prevent the eruption of a rapid, full-scale war. Each actor within the Resistance Front would operate according to its own priorities and capabilities. The US is fully aware that any war of this nature would not remain contained, and it is precisely this understanding that fuels American hesitation. In short, yes, a broad front of retaliation would indeed take shape, though not necessarily in an overt or simultaneous manner. This is exactly what Washington fears and what drives the Zionist regime to push the US toward confrontation.

Question: Would the consequences of US threats against Iran remain confined within its borders, or, given the network of American bases across the region, would the repercussions extend far beyond Iran, affecting other regional countries as well?

Gen. Shehadeh: Some claim a war would be contained within Iran. This is either an American illusion or a deliberate media campaign to reassure allies. The reality is that US bases in the Persian Gulf region, Iraq, and Syria are not neutral; they are potential targets in any significant escalation. Shipping lanes, energy flows, and oil markets would be at the center of the conflict, even if not directly targeted. Countries hosting US bases would inevitably find themselves drawn into the conflict, particularly if their territory is used as a launch point for attacks. This reveals a central American contradiction: Washington threatens war, then calls on neighboring countries to maintain stability and restraint, while the Zionist regime pushes for escalation, knowing that any war would be fought far from its own territory. In essence, an attack on Iran would trigger a chain of regional reactions. The conflict would not be a geographically contained war, but would evolve into a crisis encompassing the entire regional system.

The conclusion is that the US believes it can govern the region through coercion. The provocative actions of the Zionist regime stem from its long term existential anxiety, as well as its fixation on the Zionist ambition of a "Greater Israel." Pursuing this path would result in thousands of casualties and widespread destruction across the region. A global oil crisis would follow, with prices per barrel reaching unimaginable heights. Destruction in Tel Aviv and Haifa would also be extensive. Ultimately, it is the region that will bear the catastrophic cost of these threats—should they ever escalate into war.