Iran’s continued expansion of its strikes to include Arab Gulf states and Jordan does not serve Tehran’s interests, but instead raises the cost of confrontation and opens the door to broader American responses in the coming days, according to Jordanian columnist Firas Al-Nu’san, writing in Al Dustour on July 23. The analysis argues that the wider the circle of attacks becomes, the harder it grows to contain the escalation or keep it within calculated limits.
Targeting Jordan and Gulf states, or threatening their security and interests, does not shift the balance of power in Tehran’s favor, Al-Nu’san contends, but instead gives the United States and its allies additional justification to intensify strikes on Iranian targets, including military sites, missile and drone-related facilities, and command centers. Iran is reportedly betting that widening the confrontation will raise the cost of prolonged war for its adversaries, but this strategy carries major risks, since an open-ended conflict with a larger number of states means military and economic attrition, placing the Revolutionary Guard before challenges that extend beyond external battlefronts into Iran’s domestic front.
Domestic Pressure Mounts
Internal pressure will be one of the most significant consequences of continued escalation, the piece notes, pointing out that Iranians have faced years of economic and livelihood crises, and any prolonged war will add new burdens on the government of Iran’s president, which will find itself compelled to answer for the outcomes of its foreign policy and the human cost of confrontation on citizens’ lives. Continued escalation will also confront the Revolutionary Guard and political leadership with growing internal questions about crisis management and the choices that led to this stage, since regimes are affected not only by military strikes but by their ability to maintain internal cohesion as losses and pressures accumulate.
Khamenei at the Center
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, as the ultimate decision-maker on strategic files, will be at the heart of any internal debate over Iran’s future trajectory, according to the analysis. Should the war continue and its fronts expand, a phase of realigning power balances within the regime could begin, potentially opening the door to changes in how the state is governed or in the nature of relations between its institutions. The piece concludes that while the trajectory of future changes cannot be stated with certainty, widening the fronts does not grant Iran greater room to maneuver so much as it exposes it to greater risks — with a conflict that began as a struggle against specific adversaries potentially turning into a multi-front crisis whose price will be as much domestic as military.