Just a few months ago, experts were predicting that Israeli-American strikes on Iran would create a new reality in the Middle East, shifting the regional balances of power and deterrence against Iran. This hypothesis was based on a clear premise: Either Tehran would be forced to retreat under the weight of its losses, or the path would open for a political settlement to reorganize the region on a more stable footing. Today, events are moving in the exact opposite direction.
The Middle East has entered a tunnel with a dead end, heading for neither peace nor an all-out conflict that decisively shifts the balance of power. Instead, it is sliding toward the worst scenario of all: an open-ended war of attrition, with no imminent prospect of a political resolution or a decisive military victory. The conflict is evolving into a permanent feature of the regional landscape, characterized by reciprocal escalation, threats to vital infrastructure, the erosion of regional security, and the undermining of the global economy. The risk is that attrition, insecurity and economic instability become the “new normal” for the Middle East.
The Spillover of War
The conflict has spilled well beyond the borders of Iran. Tehran and its regional proxies continue to attack the Gulf, while Iraq has transformed into an arena for strikes on both militias and military bases. Jordan is also in the line of fire: Drones crossing its airspace have dragged it into a war it did not instigate. Iranian-linked attacks have even extended to Egypt.
The escalation has also widened to Yemen and the Red Sea, shifting from targeted military operations into a security crisis that constricts international shipping and drives up global trade costs, plunging the region into a new phase of geostrategic risk that threatens one of the world’s most important trade arteries. The Strait of Hormuz has become Tehran’s strongest bargaining chip; approximately one-fifth of the world’s liquid petroleum and a significant share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) pass through the strait, making it a critical chokepoint in the global energy system.
The most alarming sign here is not the number of missiles, but the number of fronts, all of which are expanding, even if the intensity of fire is not. This represents the most dangerous form of escalation—that of geographic scope—including the U.S.-led military effort involving bases in Britain, Germany, Portugal, and Bulgaria, alongside Israel, which serves as the primary hub for U.S. forces in the region.
Washington does not currently appear to be seeking a ground invasion of Iran, despite discussions of limited amphibious landings on certain Iranian islands. Based on previous experience, the U.S. recognizes that the cost of toppling the Iranian regime could far exceed that of it remaining in place, and that the regional repercussions could prove to be worse than the collapse itself. Meanwhile, Israel is currently on the sidelines. Although it can deliver precise, devastating strikes against Iran, it cannot eliminate threats to its own heartland using air power alone, and America’s capacity to defend multiple fronts simultaneously is eroding.
The Iranian threat, however, has never been limited to attacks on fixed targets; it encompasses a political and ideological network spanning the entire region. Yet as Tehran’s political influence declines, its goal is no longer to achieve a military or political victory. Instead, it seeks to prevent its adversaries from doing so by turning the entire Middle East into a theater of attrition, whereby neither side can secure a decisive victory nor withdraw.
The Contours of the Future
The trajectory of the conflict is becoming clearer. A ground invasion of Iran is currently off the table, and an end to the war is nowhere in sight. Conversely, we are seeing the conflict metastasize. The Gulf endures repeated missile attacks, and battlefronts stretch from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea and potentially other areas. All the while, the core conflict remains unresolved.
This is a model Iran has long mastered and relied upon: transforming every border into a potential front, every maritime corridor into a tool of political leverage, and every non-state Iranian proxy into an instrument for prolonging the conflict.
Its battle is no longer about defending Iranian territory, but about distributing the costs of war to ensure that oil prices, international shipping, and the stability of Arab nations become integral to Tehran’s calculus of deterrence and retaliation.
It would be wrong to believe that this type of conflict is less dangerous than all-out warfare. Wars are not catastrophic only when they erupt in a single, massive conflagration, but also when they evolve into a permanent, constantly regenerating state of affairs. Every strike triggers a counter-strike, and every new front provides the pretext for opening another, until the region eventually finds itself mired in a war that nobody declared, but has become a daily reality, draining economies, security, politics, and societies alike.
The paradox lies in each party’s belief that it can control the pace of escalation—determining the timing, scope, and outcome of each act—yet the dynamics of the conflict often transcend the calculations of the actors themselves. Protracted wars rarely remain under the control of the warring parties. The Vietnam War escalated from the Gulf of Tonkin incident into one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, followed by asymmetric wars of attrition in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine has evolved into one of Europe’s worst conflicts since World War II.
Every war of attrition begins with the delusion—and ends with the loss—of control. The Middle East today cannot afford the luxury of such attrition. The region had embarked on a historic phase of economic reconstruction, revenue diversification, and transformation into a global hub for investment, energy, and technology, underpinned by long-term development projects; today, it needs stability more than it needs additional capital.
Yet the war demands that resources be diverted from development to defense, from economic investment to security, and from building the future to crisis management. This is not just a financial loss that can be recouped in a future budget; it represents a loss of time, international credibility, and opportunities to realize long-term national visions. Investors who change plans do not quickly return, and shipping companies that change routes do not revert them at the first moment of calm.
Amidst this fraught reality, Iran believes that draining the region will safeguard its regime. Yet in doing so, Tehran is squandering its remaining regional influence, transforming itself from a power in search of regional legitimacy into a security liability that all other actors strive to contain. While Tehran assumes that limited strikes might avert a major war, it risks stumbling into a conflict it does not have the capacity to endure.
Ultimately, the Middle East has entered a phase more perilous than all-out war: a state of endless conflict, low in intensity but exorbitant in cost, with neither victors nor vanquished, only losers—and potential new parties destined to lose even more.
If this dynamic persists, the question will not be when the war ends, but rather: How many more states will be drawn into the vortex of conflict, and when will the world realize it is dealing not with a fleeting crisis, but with a new regional order governed by the logic of perpetual attrition?
This article was originally written in Arabic and translated into English.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.
