Even as Washington hints at a quick end to the war with Iran, analysts say Tehran is preparing for a longer strategic struggle.
The Middle East is in the grip of a widening conflict following joint US and Israeli strikes across Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory attacks.
While US president Donald Trump has suggested the war could end soon, many analysts and regional actors see the trajectory very differently. For them, the escalation risks pulling the region into a deeper and more dangerous phase.
The European Council on Foreign Relations has warned that the confrontation could become a war with no winners, raising humanitarian risks inside Iran and threatening to destabilise an already fragile region.
According to the foreign policy think tank, the latest conflict also risks drawing in global powers such as Russia and China while spreading across multiple theatres, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf.
Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East and North Africa programme director at the ECFR, says the conflict has already passed the point of easy containment.
“We’re already at that moment,” he told RFI. “The conflict has quickly expanded and Iran - from the outset - has been intent on demonstrating that this could not be a containable war.”
Conflict spreads across the Middle East as Iran names new supreme leader
Regional escalation gathers pace
Tehran’s response has been shaped by a clear strategic calculation – to raise the cost of confrontation and widen the battlefield. According to Barnes-Dacey, the Iranian leadership has deliberately sought to show that any attempt to weaken or topple the regime would trigger a regional backlash.
“Iran has been intent on demonstrating that the price of attacking Iran – the price of trying to bring down the regime – would be a conflict that would engulf the entire region,” he said.
That approach has already begun to play out across the region. Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon and Iraq have mobilised, while tensions have intensified between Israel and Hezbollah.
In Lebanon, Barnes-Dacey says the situation is particularly volatile, with Israel sharply increasing its attacks and speculation growing about a possible ground incursion.
Meanwhile, Washington is reportedly exploring additional pressure points against Tehran, including outreach to Kurdish actors who have had an uneasy and often transactional relationship with the US in the past.
The result is a conflict that is becoming structurally wider, involving proxy forces and regional actors whose involvement could deepen the crisis.
One week into Iran war, the dangers for the US and Trump multiply
Strategic vacuum
Despite the expanding military campaign, analysts say the political endgame remains unclear. Barnes-Dacey describes the current US strategy as deeply inconsistent.
“It’s clearly a mess,” he said. “Both in terms of tactics and strategy we seem to be facing a real kind of vacuum at the heart of the US operation.”
According to him, Washington’s stated goals have shifted repeatedly, ranging from limiting Iran’s missile capabilities to pursuing regime change.
At times the administration has spoken about a prolonged war, only for Trump to suggest shortly afterwards that the conflict could soon be over.
This uncertainty may also reflect strategic differences between Washington and Israel. While the US president may be reluctant to become trapped in a long conflict, Barnes-Dacey says Israel appears more determined to fundamentally weaken – or even break – the Iranian regime.
That divergence matters because Iran is not a small or easily subdued country. With a population of more than 90 million and extensive regional connections, any attempt to push the Iranian state towards collapse could have far-reaching consequences.
“A state collapse goal would be devastating,” Barnes-Dacey warned, pointing to the potential for regional instability, migration pressures and broader security fallout.
Deterrence through resistance
For Tehran, the response appears rooted less in ideology than in strategic logic. Iranian leaders believe that making concessions under pressure could invite further attacks in the future.
“There does seem to be a sense that from the Iranian perspective they have to definitively draw a line in the sand,” Barnes-Dacey said.
He added that rather than negotiate from a position of weakness, the regime wants to demonstrate that the cost of pursuing regime change will be prohibitively high. The goal is to restore deterrence and ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic.
This strategy is already visible in the evolving military campaign. Early in the conflict, Iran launched large numbers of missiles at Israeli targets. Those barrages have since decreased – a shift that may partly reflect battlefield losses, but which Barnes-Dacey believes could also be deliberate.
Instead of exhausting its arsenal quickly, Tehran may be conserving resources in order to sustain pressure over time.
“We now seem to be in a war of attrition between the two sides,” he said.
In that contest, the timelines differ sharply. Washington appears eager to limit the duration of the conflict, partly because of fears about energy prices and regional escalation. Iran, by contrast, may be prepared to prolong the confrontation in order to demonstrate resilience.
Iran says European countries helped create conditions for US, Israeli attacks
Europe on the sidelines
For Europe, the conflict poses difficult political and economic dilemmas. Leaders across the continent have sought to strike a delicate diplomatic balance – expressing concern about escalation while avoiding open confrontation with Washington.
Barnes-Dacey, however, is critical of that approach.
“Irrelevant at best, disastrous at worst,” he said of the European response so far.
He points out that many European governments have opted for cautious language, placing much of the blame on Iran while attempting to remain in the good graces of the Trump administration.
That calculation is partly driven by concerns about other geopolitical priorities, including the war in Ukraine and economic relations with the US.
Yet the conflict itself may ultimately carry heavy costs for Europe. Rising energy prices, instability along key shipping routes such as the Strait of Hormuz and the diversion of military resources away from Ukraine could all have serious consequences.
“The Europeans are desperately trying to tread carefully and keep Trump happy,” Barnes-Dacey said. “But they are not putting any real handbrakes on a conflict that could spiral even further out of control.”
Who is Mojtaba Khamenei, the influential insider now leading Iran?
Hardliners strengthened
Inside Iran itself, the war could also reshape the country’s political future. Rather than weakening the ruling system, Barnes-Dacey believes external military pressure may strengthen the most hardline elements of the regime.
The new leadership emerging in Tehran – under the newly appointed Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei – is already seen as more closely aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Following the assassination of senior figures during the conflict, including Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, the incentive for compromise is likely to diminish further.
“This conflict is only going to exacerbate and entrench hardline forces within the country,” Barnes-Dacey said.
At the same time, ordinary Iranians face a grim reality – caught between an increasingly securitised state and an intensifying military campaign.
“The Iranian people are suffering all through this,” he said, noting that bombardments have hit not only military targets but also infrastructure and state institutions.
Those conditions make it unlikely that large-scale protest movements will emerge in the near term, despite earlier demonstrations against the regime.
For now, the conflict appears to be entering a prolonged and uncertain phase. With both sides seeking leverage and no clear diplomatic pathway in sight, the question of how - or when - the fighting will end remains unanswered.
