The Expanding Iran War

• Med this Week Middle East and North Africa
  by Leonardo Del Piccolo
• whatsapp

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios. Today, we shed light on the regional spillover of the Iran crisis and its effects.

The Iran war has rapidly become a global crisis. The massive US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic, which has killed more than 1,000 Iranians, appeared unprecedented in magnitude from the moment Iran's Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed along with other senior figures in his inner circle on February 28. Since then, almost every country in the Middle East has been hit by either side, resulting in casualties and significant damage. Although the rationale behind the Iranian reaction might be to put pressure on the entire region - including several key US allies - in order to push Washington back to the negotiating table, the consequences of this crisis already extend far beyond the region, causing massive disruptions to global supply chains due to attacks on key logistical hubs, oil fields and refineries - but most importantly, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Unlike previous escalations, historically neutral actors such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members are being dragged into the conflict and could be forced to respond. Meanwhile, the escalation is severely impacting already fragile contexts, as the recent evacuation order of south Beirut by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) demonstrates. Military operations now also appear to have long crossed the region's borders as Iran struck the British military base at Akrotiri in Cyprus and the US claimed responsibility for the sinking of an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka. Today, Italy's pledge to support its Gulf partners with its air defence capabilities - following military deployments by the UK, Germany and France - further underscores the risk of involvement of European countries, whereas positions among EU members remain overall cautious, but inconsistent. Recent reports of US support to the Iranian-Kurdish separatists and the explicit US-Israeli aim of dismantling Iran's security apparatus - though with an unclear strategy and timeline - cast new shadows on the future of both the country and the wider region. How are the countries involved responding to the Iranian strikes? How is the war affecting state fragility in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? And what are the regional and global implications of such a wide escalation?

Experts from the ISPI network discuss the impact of the ongoing Iran war on the wider Mediterranean region and beyond.

An unwanted outcome: regime entrenchment

"The ongoing war has forced the political and military elite of the Islamic Republic to find a convergence on the course of action and the position to adopt. Contrary to what Israel and the United States had hoped - believing that the decapitation of the military and political leadership, such as the killing of Supreme Leader Khamenei, would trigger a collapse of the system - the Islamic Republic is holding together thanks to its institutional structure, its networks of power, and the branching of command centres also delegated to provincial governors. With the top ranks of the military leadership and IRGC generals eliminated, the system will have to make room for new generations, far more ideologically driven than the previous ones and unlikely to negotiate with the West on issues such as missiles and the nuclear program. If the conflict were to drag on for a long time, the plausible scenario for domestic politics would not be the formation of a more moderate, liberal, or pragmatic system, but rather a more intransigent, isolated, and potentially destabilised one."

Giorgia Perletta, Researcher, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Iranian Kurds take centre stage amid the crisis

"The Kurds in Iran can play a critical role in the future of Iran since they have armed experience and have previously received training from the coalition. The Trump administration is now exploring ways to support them to create a safe haven for the Iranian opposition. If given air cover and armed support, the Kurds could quickly push out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), from Kurdish areas. These areas can then be a safe haven for protestors and the future new Iranian army. The only thing is that they will need guarantees for recognition of an autonomous area and that they are not abandoned like the Syrian Kurds on the basis that it was just a transactional relationship."

Wladimir van Wilgenburg, Freelance Journalist

Iran's strikes put Saudi Arabia at the crossroads

"Iran's strikes against Saudi Arabia appear to reflect a broader strategy that Iranian officials had signalled prior to the conflict, namely the possibility that a bilateral confrontation could expand into a wider regional dimension. Tehran has also indicated that locations associated with US military presence or strategic interests in the region could become targets. For the Gulf states, the current priority remains managing the situation carefully while avoiding further escalation. While there is a clear interest in addressing regional security concerns related to Iran, direct military involvement is not viewed as the preferred course of action at this stage, particularly as the impact of the attacks has remained manageable. That said, attacks on critical civilian infrastructure or incidents causing large-scale casualties would represent serious thresholds that could alter the regional response."

Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman, Gulf Research Center

Qatar-Iran: end of the honeymoon?

"Doha's preference for dialogue and diplomacy with Tehran has been an important, albeit only one, factor in explaining Qatar's status as a stable oasis in a turbulent wider region. The recent unprovoked attacks have cost Tehran much Qatari goodwill. Yet unleashing missiles and drones at its neighbour not only depletes US and GCC air-defences but is one of the few retaliatory options Iran has left. These attacks may even contribute to rising energy prices and knock-on economic impacts that force the US to cut-short its military campaign and reign in Israeli ambitions. In response, Qatar has taken a measured but firm rhetorical and military position. This is intended to achieve two things: defend its citizens and residents from outside aggression; and signal to a watching world that it can protect its sovereignty and navigate the current turmoil in a pragmatic way in the interests of regional stability."

Rory Miller, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University in Qatar

Netanyahu's potential win-win: translating victory into electoral success

"Apart from the Arab-majority Hadash party, which condemned the attack and warned of the risk of worsening conditions in both the West Bank and Gaza, opposition leaders have called for national unity, setting aside their criticism of the government and rallied around it. These criticisms, however, have been mounting in recent months as the country approaches the end of October, when elections are expected. However, this war with Iran could serve as a golden opportunity for Netanyahu to secure a new mandate. Over the past three years, especially since October 7, every time the government, together with the military, has taken a strong action against one of Israel's rivals - from the war with Hezbollah to targeted strikes against the leadership of Hamas - Netanyahu's approval has tended to rise compared to periods of relative 'calm'. This appears to be happening again. The latest survey by the Israel Democracy Institute, published on March 4, showed that 64.4% of the Israeli public supported the decision. Most likely, Netanyahu and his allies in the Likud party will attempt to capitalise on this consensus. Signs of this strategy are already emerging: a few days ago, one Likud MK suggested that elections could be brought forward to late June or early July, precisely to ride the current wave of support."

Sara Isabella Leykin, ISPI MENA Centre

"Iraq's political elite agrees: Baghdad must stay out of the war"

"Iraq's political leaders acknowledge that only diplomacy can end the ongoing hostilities, and even the armed groups that make up the so-called resistance factions in Iraq understand that they cannot meaningfully shape the trajectory of this war. Therefore, regardless of their escalatory rhetoric, there is broad alignment across the political spectrum around pursuing a diplomatic path that ensures that Iraq is not dragged into this conflict. Meanwhile, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the most senior religious figure in Shia Islam who leads the religious establishment in Najaf, has asserted that international law should be the benchmark for finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict and that only through international cooperation can an impending catastrophe that threatens to engulf the entire region be prevented."

Ali Al-Mawlawi, Director, Horizon Advisory Group

The war hardens Hezbollah's struggle for survival

"The actions undertaken by the Lebanese party-militia appeared to many less as a calculated move than a form of political and military suicide. Within a matter of hours, Hezbollah faced condemnation from the state, which officially prohibited its military activities; it likely strained relations with its ally Amal; and it even witnessed the Baalbek-Hermel clans backing the authorities' decision. These unprecedented developments seem to indicate that the Party of God is becoming increasingly isolated. Yet, while it remains unclear whether and how the Lebanese state will be able to implement its decision, and as the prospect of a new Israeli invasion looms over southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is once again betting on resistance as a means of survival. What remains uncertain, however, is how long it can withstand the weight of its own structural weaknesses. In this context, however, it seems that once again it is the Lebanese state that is paying the highest price for Hezbollah's decisions. In fact, Lebanon could emerge even weaker from a future truce with Israel or see part of its national territory occupied again."

Luigi Toninelli, ISPI MENA Centre

By rejecting Iran's response, Syria turns the page

"Following the 2024 collapse of the Assad regime, both Iran and Israel exacerbated sectarian strife inside Syria. This made Syria's position more vulnerable to becoming an arena for proxy conflict during the 12-day war of 2025. But while 2025 saw Syria merely weathering regional fallout, Syria's response in March 2026 has been through clear condemnation by the president and foreign minister of Iran's strikes on Arab countries. Although Syria itself has not been targeted, its 2026 response proactively rejects Iranian influence to assert national sovereignty and affirm Syria's reintegration into the Arab fold."

Lina Khatib, Associate Fellow, Chatham House; Visiting Scholar, Middle East Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School; Principal Analyst, ExTrac

Ongoing strikes put Ankara in a predicament

"Ankara views the rapidly escalating conflict with deep concern. It has condemned the US-Israeli strikes on Iran while also criticising Tehran's decision to widen the war by targeting Gulf states. For Ankara, the risks of prolonged destabilisation are both strategic and economic. Uncertainty over the scope of Iran's retaliatory targeting compounds these anxieties. Rising energy prices amid ongoing domestic economic fragility, and renewed migration pressures further strain its position. Above all, scenarios involving a resurgent Kurdish insurgency or Iranian state fragmentation are not welcomed - either outcome could derail the talks underway on the PKK's disarmament and dissolution."

Sinem Adar, Head, Centre for Applied Türkey Studies (CATS) at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)

Nakhchivan strike brings Tehran and Baku to a reckoning

"Iran and Azerbaijan have never enjoyed a smooth relationship. Millions of ethnic Azerbaijanis live in Iran's northwestern provinces, raising Tehran's concerns over nationalist demands for the "reunification" of the Azerbaijani people. At the same time, Iran has historically maintained strong ties with Armenia, Baku's long-time enemy. Since the end of hostilities with Yerevan, my discussions with Azerbaijani policy experts suggest that Iran has partially replaced Armenia as Azerbaijan's perceived arch-nemesis and national threat. This is the context behind the Iranian drone attacks on Nakhchivan airport, Azerbaijan's exclave, and why the incident is particularly alarming. While Baku showed restraint during last June's conflict involving Iran, the US, and Israel - also a close partner of Azerbaijan - this direct strike prompted the Azerbaijani government to assert its right to retaliate, potentially widening the conflict. Iran's ability and willingness to clarify the incident and offer an apology will largely determine how Baku responds."

Eleonora Tafuro Ambrosettio, ISPI Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia Centre

EU: caution without a roadmap

"The EU's response to the Iran war has so far been characterised by restraint and caution. EU leaders and Member States diverge on how the crisis began and where responsibility primarily lies, as well as on its likely trajectory, how firm to be toward Iran, and how far to accommodate US operational requirements, including access to national territory. The broad common denominator remains a preference for diplomacy: urging restraint, protection of civilians, and respect for international law. Still, there is no agreed EU roadmap, and Brussels remains largely in analysis mode. Regarding Iran's strikes in Cyprus, the EU is likely to signal solidarity while hedging legally and politically. Support will mostly be channelled through bilateral measures, and recourse to Article 42(7) remains unlikely."

Katarzyna Sidło, Senior Policy Analyst, European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)

Hormuz's comeback as a global bottleneck

"The escalation is less about a physical closure of the Strait of Hormuz than about the strategic weaponisation of risk. Iranian actions against ships and infrastructure in and around the Strait of Hormuz have triggered spikes in insurance premiums and a near stoppage of vessel movements that usually account for 20% of global oil and gas supplies. The maritime transport chokepoint is a powerful geopolitical lever. The longer the perceived risk remains high, the worse the consequences for the global economy will be. This mirrors patterns seen in the Red Sea and Black Sea, where geographical constraints and limited alternatives for rerouting or switching of transport mode allow coercive acts to generate disproportionate supply chain consequences."

Sarah Schiffling, Deputy Director, Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research (HUMLOG) Institute, Hanken School of Economics