US-Iran Tensions Escalate: Risk of War Rises Amidst Nuclear Deadlock and Military Posturing
Table of Contents
A dangerous escalation in rhetoric and military positioning between the United States and Iran is fueling fears of a potential full-scale conflict, driven by a stalled nuclear agreement and internal unrest within Iran.
The situation reached a critical point as the US president threatened the Iranian regime with a military response “far worse” than previous actions should they fail to agree to a new nuclear accord. Iran responded with a vow of a “crushing response” to any military attack. Adding to the tension, a US naval “armada,” led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, has arrived in the Middle East to conduct military exercises.
Two Potential Paths to Conflict
According to Hilde Henriksen Waage, a history professor at the University of Oslo (UiO) and senior researcher at the peace research institute Prio, the danger of a major American attack on Iran is “very real.” “This is very scary, because when the USA sends such an armada towards the Persian Gulf, they mean business,” Waage stated. She outlined two primary scenarios: the US leveraging the military threat to compel a new nuclear agreement, or the execution of a large-scale attack targeting Iran’s nuclear program. “In both cases the goal is regime change, but in the first instance to get the nuclear program discontinued or under control,” she explained.
The current impasse stems from the US withdrawal from the international nuclear deal with Iran during a previous administration. That agreement required Iran to significantly curtail uranium enrichment and allow extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US withdrawal, Iran resumed uranium enrichment and limited IAEA inspections, asserting its nuclear program remains solely for civilian purposes. The regime reportedly anticipated greater economic benefits from the original agreement than were ultimately realized. Attempts to revive negotiations have been ongoing, but were disrupted by a US attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities in June.
Internal Turmoil and External Pressure
The situation is further complicated by widespread protests within Iran, which erupted in late December and have been met with a brutal crackdown by the clergy. Reports indicate a significant number of civilian deaths, with official figures claiming 3,117 fatalities, though estimates suggest the actual toll could be nearly ten times higher. The regime has restricted internet access, limiting external awareness of the extent of the unrest.
A senior official indicated that US sanctions are contributing to the economic pressures fueling the protests, stating at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the “president asked us to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it has worked. Because in December their economy collapsed… This is the reason why people took to the streets.” However, Sverre Lodgaard, a senior researcher emeritus at Nupi, argues that the pressure on the Iranian regime is a result of “a combination of mismanagement and American hybrid warfare.”
Lodgaard cautioned that a military strike could inadvertently empower those seeking to overthrow the clergy, but also warned that the US lacks a clear plan for post-regime stability. “If the US has plans to install a new board, they should have an idea of who will take over and how it will happen,” he said. “So far, we have not seen cracks in the regime and Trump is not willing to deploy forces on the ground, so much can go wrong. Iran is not a new Venezuela.” He also noted the concerns of Arab nations regarding regional destabilization, with Qatar actively working to prevent conflict and refusing to allow its territory to be used for an attack on Iran. Similarly, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates have denied the US access to their territories.
Limited Options and Regional Implications
Following a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities last summer, Iran demonstrated its ability to strike Israel and US military bases in the Middle East. Despite this capability, Iran is considered unlikely to prevail in a full-scale war against the United States. Waage expressed concern that a US attempt to overthrow the regime could lead to a major refugee crisis, economic collapse, and widespread suffering for the Iranian population, drawing parallels to the outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
On Thursday, signals emerged that the clergy is open to negotiations with the United States, though skepticism remains regarding the US’s willingness to engage in good-faith discussions. Lodgaard emphasized the need for compromise from both sides, stating, “It is in Iran’s interest to negotiate, but then you have to have two parties who are willing to give and take, even if it becomes lopsided, and it is highly unclear whether that will is present.” Waage suggested that a more effective approach would involve offering the clergy tangible benefits in exchange for de-escalation and increased controls over its nuclear program – a “carrot” alongside the “whip.”
The path forward remains fraught with peril, and the risk of miscalculation looms large. A failure to de-escalate tensions could have devastating consequences for the region and beyond.
