When Iran was subjected to a U.S. strike the day before yesterday, it interpreted it as a direct affront to the deterrence equation it had built over years of direct and indirect confrontation. Therefore, its response came swift and expansive, resembling the charge of a bull storming a china shop, as Tehran widened the scope of its strikes to include U.S. interests and bases in a number of Gulf countries, in an attempt to re-establish the rules of engagement in the region.
Major crises in the Middle East, as is well known, do not move with quiet steps. Once they enter the stage, they retest the delicate and fateful balances and open the door to re-engineering the balances of power and influence, where the margin of error narrows and the management of escalation—ebb and flow—becomes the true title of the phase.
In the American reading, according to experts who spoke to several satellite channels, any military action against Iran is usually not understood as a gateway to comprehensive war, but rather as a tool to recalibrate Iranian behavior within a defined deterrent ceiling.
Historically, Washington tends toward surgical strikes aimed at reducing missile capabilities, slowing the nuclear program, or weakening drone systems. These objectives may appear military on the surface, but they carry a larger political dimension related to redrawing lines of influence in the Gulf without sliding into a costly open war whose repercussions could expand to affect everyone without exception.
However, the core dilemma lies in the fact that Iran is not a traditional actor that is easy to contain or control. It relies on a doctrine of asymmetric deterrence that allows it to expand the theater of confrontation vertically and horizontally, making any limited strike liable to trigger wide responses that are difficult to fully contain—as is happening now.
The Iranian military doctrine is based on a clear principle: if the Iranian depth is struck, U.S. bases in the region will be struck. Therefore, targeting those bases or related interests becomes the most likely scenario in any round of escalation. Nevertheless, Tehran’s accumulated experience shows a consistent tendency toward calculated restraint that does not favor prolonging war. It realizes that expanding the circle of fire to the level of comprehensive war could threaten the survival of the regime—a strategic red line it is not prepared to cross, at least for now.
From here, Iranian behavior can be understood as a mixture of studied impulsiveness and anxious discipline: strikes painful enough to preserve deterrence, yet governed by a rhythm that prevents total explosion.
Behind these declared military objectives stands an equation deeper than the calculations. Iranian missiles are not merely a weapons system but a deterrent lever through which Tehran compensates for its relative weakness in air and naval power.
As for the nuclear program, it represents a strategic bargaining chip. Therefore, any attempt to strip Iran of these two elements effectively means reducing its regional standing and narrowing its room for maneuver. In this context, pressure on Iran intersects with important calculations touching global energy security, particularly Chinese interests that view Tehran as a significant geopolitical node within its supply networks and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Nevertheless, it would be an exaggeration to assume that Washington is directly targeting Beijing through the Iranian gateway, as some analysts have suggested. Most likely, the impact of pressure on China remains an important side gain, not the primary undeclared objective.
Accordingly, the most sensitive and important question remains what might happen if Iran were significantly neutralized regionally in this process. The political history of the region teaches us that power vacuums do not remain empty for long; they quickly turn into fluid spaces competing forces rush to fill.
Some link this to the rise of political Islam. However, the automatic linkage between weakening Iran and the rise of Islamist currents—given the experience of the Arab Spring—remains an oversimplification in some respects.
The expansion of such movements is primarily tied to the fragility of the nation-state, its subordination to external influence, structural economic crises, and gaps in electoral political legitimacy. Nevertheless, the decline of a regional center of gravity the size of Iran could indeed open windows of movement for some currents in the more fragile environments, especially amid weak political systems.
Amid this heated regional confrontation, Sudan does not stand at the center of the storm, yet it is not immune to its repercussions. Its geographic position, political composition, and urgent need to rebuild the state after an exhausting war impose upon it the adoption of a careful policy that blends strategic caution with pragmatic realism.
Yesterday’s meeting of the Security and Defense Council, along with President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s contacts with a number of Arab leaders, reflected a calculated Sudanese positioning that politically leans toward supporting Gulf allies while maintaining a disciplined diplomatic ceiling that avoids direct field engagement—a balance driven by internal necessities before external calculations.
Economically, any wide and prolonged escalation in the Gulf carries the risks of disruption in energy markets and supply chains, adding new pressures on the Sudanese economy, which already suffers from fragility and post-war challenges.
From a security perspective, the widening of tension raises the level of fluidity in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa environment, making the neutralization of Sudanese geography a priority no less important than managing its regional relations.
Politically, Khartoum finds itself facing a delicate equation: preserving its vital Gulf depth while avoiding slipping into sharp polarization that would constrain its traditional margin of movement.
Therefore, Sudan’s strategic wisdom at this moment does not lie in raising its voice or aligning rigidly, but in mastering its positioning—consolidating the internal front, expanding diplomatic presence, and protecting the Red Sea theater from turning into an open conflict arena.
The Middle East today stands on the edge of a fragile balance: a limited strike that may be read in Washington as a tool of control is understood in Tehran as an existential threat, and between the two perceptions lies a dangerous space of miscalculation.
According to #The_Face_of_Truth, Iran possesses the capacity to create widespread chaos if it moves without restraint, but so far it prefers calculated momentum over total explosion. Between these two limits, a tense regional scene is taking shape—neither an inevitable war nor a stable peace, but a suspended moment held by the fingertips of the parties… awaiting the big mistake.
Stay well and healthy.
Monday, March 2, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com
