اخبار سوريا اليوم – وطن نيوز
سوريا اليوم – اخبار سوريا عاجل
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-03-22 15:16:00
Four weeks after the expansion of Israeli-American military operations against Iran, the confrontation entered a more dangerous phase, after it moved from exchanging strikes on military and nuclear sites to a direct threat to the energy infrastructure and sea lanes on which a large part of the global economy is based. In a few hours, the Strait of Hormuz turned into the focus of the crisis, after US President Donald Trump gave Tehran a 48-hour deadline to fully reopen it, threatening to target Iranian energy plants if they did not respond, while Tehran responded with counter threats that targeted American and Israeli energy facilities in the Gulf. Hormuz…the threatened artery of the world. This is not just a new round of mutual deterrence, but rather a harsh test of the limits of escalation in a region where military geography intersects with the security of global supplies. The seriousness of the scene lies in the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is not a symbolic corridor in an open war, but rather one of the most important energy arteries in the world. According to the US Energy Information Administration, about 20 million barrels per day of oil passed through it in 2024, equivalent to about 20 percent of the global consumption of petroleum liquids, while the International Energy Agency estimated that about 20 million barrels per day of oil and its derivatives crossed the Strait in 2025, that is, nearly a quarter of the transported oil trade. By sea. The two agencies confirm that the alternatives to circumventing the strait are very limited, which means that any long-term disruption, even partial, is capable of causing a shock in prices, maritime insurance, transportation, and supply chains, at a time when the global economy is still fragile in the face of any new wave of inflation. The strategy of expanding the conflict In this context, Tehran’s movements do not seem governed only by the logic of responding to strikes, but rather reflect a calculated trend towards expanding the scope of the conflict and raising its cost to the maximum possible extent, so that the confrontation does not remain confined between it and its direct opponents. Iran realizes that moving the battle to a broader regional space, by threatening vital sea lanes and targeting energy infrastructure or threatening to do so, would place the Gulf states and international powers facing a more complex equation, as the war turns from a bilateral dispute into a comprehensive regional crisis with global economic repercussions. In this sense, Tehran seeks to drag the region, especially the countries most closely linked to energy markets and maritime trade, into the heart and depth of the conflict, doubling its political and economic cost to everyone, and pushing parties that were not directly involved to face its consequences, if not engage in it in one way or another. Energy is in the crosshairs. It seems that energy has become the most sensitive arena in this war. A few days ago, the giant South Pars gas field was subjected to an Israeli strike, which Reuters described as the largest escalation to date, especially since it is a field that represents about 70 to 75 percent of Iran’s gas production, and also supplies the local market with electricity, heating, and petrochemicals. The attack forced Tehran to redirect gas from its exports to Iraq towards internal consumption, while other reports indicated that gas facilities in Qatar were temporarily halted, which put pressure on the liquefied gas market and raised additional concerns about the decline in global supply. At a moment like this, every strike on the energy infrastructure becomes more than just a military response. It is an attempt to impose a direct economic cost on the opponent and on the international market simultaneously. The impact of the war did not remain limited to the Gulf. In southern Israel, Israeli officials announced that Iranian missiles hit the Dimona and Arad regions, causing extensive damage to buildings and leading to casualties, while some attacks were described as penetrating air defense systems for the first time in the area surrounding sensitive sites. According to news reports, Israeli measures included canceling in-person education in schools and keeping the home front on high alert. These developments gain double importance because they mean that the conflict no longer revolves around long-term deterrence messages only, but rather around the ability to protect the civil and economic depth within Israel itself, at a time when the southern cities have become part of the theater of confrontation and not its margin. The American strategy in Washington does not appear to be more consistent. In addition to the public threats to strike Iranian energy facilities, there were reports of studying military options that include imposing a naval blockade or seeking to tighten control over the routes leading to the Gulf, while the American administration sent contradictory signals between talking about ending military engagement and continuing to enhance military deployment in the region. This duality puts the White House in front of a dilemma in that escalation may impose a painful cost on Iran, but it may also push it toward broader responses targeting American and allied interests in the Gulf. As for retreat, it in turn carries an internal political cost and raises a question about American deterrence at a moment when capitals are competing to measure the limits of American power. Regionally, the Gulf states are no longer just a concerned observer, but rather a threatened party deep within their economic structure. After the strikes on energy facilities in Iran, Tehran issued warnings to evacuate some sites in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, which reflects a clear desire to expand the circle of pressure to countries whose oil and gas infrastructure includes a major part of the global energy surplus. On the other hand, these countries stress that any prolonged disturbance in navigation through Hormuz or Bab al-Mandab will directly affect their exports, future contracts, and investors’ confidence in the stability of the region. Therefore, the Gulf is pressing toward reducing the escalation, not for love of abstract calm, but because every additional day of war doubles the cost of insurance for tankers, raises risk premiums, and threatens expansion, production, and export plans. Accelerated international action, while the international circle is also expanding. The G7 foreign ministers announced their readiness to take measures to protect global energy supplies and support the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The European Union also called for an end to strikes targeting energy and water infrastructure in the Middle East, and the International Maritime Organization stressed that the safety of ships and sailors must remain a top priority. Even Japan, which relies heavily on Gulf oil, said it might consider mine clearance operations in Hormuz if a ceasefire was reached. These positions reflect not only diplomatic concern, but a practical acknowledgment that the war is no longer a purely Middle Eastern affair, but rather a direct threat to global economic security. In a joint statement bearing a firm tone, issued on Saturday, signed by twenty-two countries including the UAE, Bahrain, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, South Korea, New Zealand and other European countries, it condemned in the strongest terms the recent Iranian attacks on unarmed commercial ships in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas facilities, and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces. The statement also called on Tehran to immediately stop its threats, laying mines, drone and missile attacks, and all other attempts aimed at obstructing commercial shipping in the strait, and to comply with Security Council Resolution No. 2817. This unified international position reflects a shift in the nature of dealing with the crisis, as the major powers now see Tehran’s actions as a direct threat to global maritime security, and not just a passing regional dispute. Warnings of bleak scenarios Amid this explosive scene, analytical voices have emerged warning of bleak scenarios that may reshape the entire region. Iranian researcher Trita Parsi, from the Quincy Research Foundation, saw that the recent escalation heralds a dangerous slide towards open confrontation, ruling out Tehran’s compliance with American threats as unrealistic. Any potential American strike will be met with a large-scale Iranian response targeting energy facilities in the Gulf region, and may extend to include targets inside Israel, within the framework of a mutual deterrence strategy that goes beyond traditional calculations. Iranian researcher Trita Parsi on the “X” platform, according to his assessment, ignoring this scenario reflects political naivety, at a time when the fragility of global markets is increasing, as any escalation is expected to lead to a sharp rise in oil and gas prices, and direct repercussions on the costs of living and food prices even within the United States, in addition to the complexity of supply chains and the closure of more vital trade routes. He also described the logic of the current escalation as leading everyone to a losing equation, considering that the realistic way out lies in the serious search for ways to save face for both parties, away from the logic of imposing defeat or humiliation. Escalation that goes beyond geography From a different angle, military analyst Patricia Marines warned that Tehran may not be moving towards calm, but rather engaging in a broad escalation path that goes beyond the limits of traditional confrontation. Through the “X” platform, it was ruled out that Iranian responses would be limited to a narrow geographical scope, suggesting that Tehran would resort to targeting vital infrastructure in the region, including electricity networks, and attempting to disrupt marine Internet cables, in addition to threatening navigation in the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Such steps, according to Marines, will disrupt global supply chains and raise the level of regional tension to unprecedented levels, which reflects irresponsible behavior that seeks to expand the scope of the conflict and force the Gulf states to engage in it instead of containing it. This approach, according to the analyst, carries serious strategic risks not only to the security of the region but also to the stability of the entire global economy, in light of the sharp interrelation between energy security and freedom of maritime navigation. A dangerous crossroads. As for the Israeli expert on Iranian affairs, Danny Citrinovic, he went further, considering that the field and political indicators are heading towards an extremely dangerous escalation scenario, stressing that reopening the Strait of Hormuz in the current circumstances seems unlikely, and that Tehran is heading to raise the threat ceiling by threatening to ignite the Gulf front, especially if the United States proceeds to target vital infrastructure inside Iran. Citrinovic warned in a post on the “X” platform that any strike of this kind would not remain limited, but rather would accelerate the involvement of other regional parties in the confrontation, most notably the Houthi group, which is difficult for it to remain outside the circle of conflict in light of the interconnectedness of the fronts. He also pointed out a clear contradiction in the American discourse between the emphasis on supporting the Iranian people on the one hand and the threat to destroy infrastructure on the other hand, considering that this approach based on verbal deterrence will not achieve its goals, but may push Washington to a decisive crossroads, either continuing with escalation with the risk of sliding into a wide regional war, or retreating in what may be interpreted as weakening the credibility of American deterrence. During any warning period, the Iranian leadership will seek to send field messages through limited targeting of infrastructure in one of the Gulf states, in a move aimed at proving readiness and the ability to expand the scope of the clash, at a time when the Gulf states are rapidly seeking to contain the escalation, realizing that they will be at the forefront of the direct repercussions. The Israeli expert on Iranian affairs, Danny Citrinovic, via “X” It appears that the region is facing a decisive moment, in which traditional deterrence or the language of abstract threats are no longer sufficient to contain the crisis. The proposed scenarios range from a long war of attrition extending to vital infrastructure in which Iran may involve the Gulf states, leading to an open regional confrontation that may include multiple parties, reaching a stage in which international powers may be forced to intervene directly to protect maritime navigation.
