Experts warn Israel’s war of regional supremacy may not stop with Iran
Analysts say the conflict has moved beyond nuclear disputes into a broader contest to reshape the Middle East
LONDON (MNTV) – An expanding war between Israel and Iran is increasingly being viewed by analysts as a defining struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East, rather than a narrowly focused campaign against Tehran’s nuclear programme.
In an opinion article for the U.K.-based Middle East Eye, commentator David Hearst argues that the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials marked a decisive escalation.
“From the first moments it became clear that this war was about regime change,” Hearst writes, contending that the objective extends beyond uranium enrichment or missile capabilities to dismantling Iran as a regional power.
The early strikes, which reportedly targeted top leadership figures gathered in close proximity, stunned observers.
While some in Israel and parts of the Iranian diaspora celebrated the attack, the reaction inside Iran was more complex.
Within hours, Tehran launched missile strikes in response. Public scenes in Iranian cities reflected grief, anger and fear, rather than the immediate mass uprising that some external voices had called for.
Hearst maintains that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long sought a decisive confrontation with Tehran. He writes that the current campaign is not a time-limited strike but “an all-out war to topple the Islamic Republic.”
According to the analysis, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now Iran have been confronted separately, allowing Israel to degrade Tehran’s regional network step by step. “Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran have all been picked off in turn,” he notes, arguing that none acted in coordinated fashion.
Tehran, however, appears to have recalibrated its strategy. During last year’s brief confrontation, Iran concentrated its firepower directly toward Israeli territory.
Now, Hearst suggests, its focus has widened to include U.S. and allied interests across the Gulf. This shift raises the risk of a broader regional war and places additional pressure on energy infrastructure and maritime routes vital to the global economy.
Energy markets have already reacted nervously, with oil and gas prices climbing amid fears of further disruption. Gulf states, many of which had urged restraint before the escalation, are now walking a tightrope.
They seek to avoid direct involvement while protecting their security and economic stability.
Stark scenarios
Hearst outlines two stark scenarios. Either sustained bombing could collapse Iran’s command structure and bring down the regime, or Tehran could absorb the blows and steer the conflict toward a ceasefire.
He suggests that the killing of Khamenei during Ramadan could, paradoxically, “rejuvenate the Iranian revolution, giving it new purpose,” rather than ending it.
He also warns of the consequences if Iran were to collapse. “If Iran folds, then we can be sure of the devastating consequences across the Gulf,” Hearst writes.
“A civil war in Iran has the capacity to send millions of refugees westwards.” Such upheaval, he argues, would destabilize neighboring states and create a humanitarian crisis with global repercussions.
In his assessment, even the fall of the Islamic Republic would not end the confrontation.
“Nor will Netanyahu’s war have ended,” Hearst cautions. He contends that Israel is “betting on the weakness of the Arab states to defend themselves, and is seeking to weaken them further.”
According to the analysis, only within “the contours of a weakened neighbourhood” could Israel redraw the regional map and “institute a new Sykes-Picot.”
Hearst goes further, warning that the logic of escalation may not stop with Iran.
“Then, it is only a matter of time before Netanyahu declares Turkiye to be Israel’s next Amalek,” he writes, invoking language that underscores the depth of regional anxiety about widening conflict.
Another dimension highlighted in the analysis is Israel’s growing partnership with India.
Author Azad Essa describes New Delhi as Israel’s strongest non-Western ally, pointing to strategic and ideological convergence that deepened during the Gaza war.
Essa notes that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to send tens of thousands of additional Indian workers to Israel, while defense cooperation has expanded to include co-production of weapons systems.
Such ties, he argues, could help offset labor and military gaps and reduce Israel’s reliance on traditional Western support.
The domestic political implications in Washington also loom large. Hearst suggests that a prolonged war could pose risks for U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly among supporters wary of foreign interventions.
A drawn-out and costly confrontation might strain political backing if it fails to deliver quick results.
For now, analysts say the conflict has entered a volatile phase with no clear exit. Whether Iran collapses, endures, or negotiates a ceasefire, the Middle East that emerges will be transformed. As Hearst concludes, the war unfolding today is not only about Iran’s nuclear file, but about who sets the terms of a new regional order — and how far that contest will go.
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
