By Abdelmonem Fawzi
Russian President Vladimir Putin met Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Moscow for emergency talks, just days after the foreign ministers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan convened in Istanbul to call for immediate dialogue and safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
These rapid diplomatic movements underscore a growing regional panic over a US-Iran conflict whose fallout is no longer contained to the primary combatants.
Every stalled negotiation heightens the threat of wider escalation, directly imperilling trade corridors, global energy markets, and the security calculations of neighbouring states.
The central question remains: what can another military campaign against Iran actually accomplish?
While Washington clearly possesses the firepower to strike Iranian infrastructure, translating tactical destruction into a durable political agreement or a permanent shift in Tehran’s behaviour is far more complex.
Degrading Iranian capabilities does not erode the regime’s core demands. Instead, Tehran is likely to absorb economic hardship and domestic pressure while retaliating laterally, extending the crisis into surrounding waters and neighbouring territory, a pattern well documented throughout past regional confrontations.
Diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran remain choked by strategic distrust and conflicting mediator agendas.
Moscow, while keen to prevent a complete collapse of the Iranian regime or a return of Western dominance in Tehran, prioritizes its own strategic flexibility over guaranteeing Iran’s security.
Russia’s historical reluctance to deliver advanced defence systems like the S-300 and S-400, coupled with its past interference in the 2015 nuclear talks, demonstrates that Moscow views Tehran as a tactical lever rather than a permanent ally.
Russia aims to keep Iran aligned against Western power, but not at the cost of being dragged into a broader military commitment.
Meanwhile, the US and Iran remain locked in a fundamental crisis of trust. Washington and its allies demand verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional proxy network.
Tehran, viewing US sanctions and military presence as an existential threat aimed at regime change, demands non-negotiable guarantees, including permanent sanctions relief and the unfreezing of assets, before considering concessions. Accusations of past betrayals leave neither side willing to offer initial concessions.
This deep divide locks the region in a hazardous state of “neither peace nor war”, where limited strikes and economic warfare exhaust both sides without resolving the root conflict.
American military power can disrupt Iranian assets, but solidifying a lasting outcome requires clear demands, credible reciprocal concessions, precise verification mechanisms, and explicit ceasefire terms.
Without these structural elements, military action yields only temporary tactical shifts while the core drivers of confrontation endure.
Some analysts compare today’s landscape to the spiralling mistrust that preceded World War I, where miscalculations and pre-emptive posturing dragged major powers into open conflict.
As the standoff intensifies, the threat of full-scale war grows less tied to long-term strategic objectives and increasingly driven by volatile short-term political timelines on both sides.
Striking targets is easy, but ending the war without burning the regional house down is the real challenge.
Abdelmonem Fawzi
Writer and expert on international relations
