Escalation Without Exit: Who Poses the Greatest Threat in the U.S.–Israel–Iran War?

By Tijani Saleh 

In assessing the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran, one conclusion emerges with uncomfortable clarity: no single actor alone constitutes the greatest threat to global peace rather, it is the interaction of their strategies that creates the most imminent danger.

However, if one actor stands out as the most immediate destabilizing force, it is the expanding military and strategic posture of Israel, whose actions are actively widening the scope, geography, and stakes of the conflict.

Israel’s direct strikes on energy infrastructure, leadership targets, and proxy networks have transformed what might have remained a contained confrontation into a multi front regional war with global economic consequences. 

Yet this conclusion does not absolve other actors. Each plays a critical and often dangerous role in sustaining and escalating the conflict.

Israel: The Engine of Escalation.

Israel is the primary kinetic driver of the war.

From the initial coordinated strikes in February 2026 to subsequent attacks on Iran’s critical gas infrastructure, Israel has pursued a doctrine of preemptive and expansive warfare. 

Its strategy reflects three core objectives:

• Neutralize Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities

• Dismantle its regional proxy network

• Reshape the Middle East’s energy and security architecture

Recent actions such as strikes on the South Pars gas field have had consequences far beyond the battlefield, triggering global energy shocks and retaliatory attacks across the gulf. 

Moreover, Israel’s widening campaign against groups like Hezbollah, including strikes on civilian linked infrastructure, has turned localized confrontations into regional humanitarian crises. 

In strategic terms, Israel is not merely fighting a war, it is expanding it.

Iran: The Strategic Survivor.

Iran represents the most resilient and unpredictable counterforce.

Despite suffering leadership losses and sustained bombardment, Tehran has responded with:

• Ballistic missile and drone attacks across multiple countries

• Strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure

• Activation of proxy networks

Iran’s approach is rooted in asymmetry and endurance. Rather than seeking outright victory, it aims to:

• Prolong the conflict

• Raise economic and political costs for its adversaries

• Stretch U.S. and allied defenses thin

This strategy is already visible in attacks across Gulf states and continued pressure on energy systems, which are central to the global economy. 

Iran may not be escalating the war’s scope as aggressively as Israel but it is ensuring the war cannot end quickly. Which both the US and Isael don’t have the “capacity” to withstand, most especially Israel.

The United States: The Enabler and Balancer.

The United States plays a dual and often contradictory role.

On one hand, Washington is

• A direct military participant in the initial strikes

• A supplier of advanced weapons and defense systems

• A protector of regional allies

On the other, it is attempting to contain escalation and manage global consequences, particularly in energy markets. 

This balancing act reveals a central tension:

• The U.S. seeks to weaken Iran

• But fears a wider war that could destabilize global markets and alliances

In effect, the United States is both fueling and restraining the conflict at the same time.

Hezbollah and Proxy Forces: The Multipliers

Iran’s allied groups Hizbollah and The Houthis, but most especially Hezbollah have turned the war into a multi theatre confrontation.

Operating from Lebanon and beyond, these groups:

• Open additional fronts against Israel

• Target U.S. and allied interests

• Increase civilian and humanitarian costs

Their involvement complicates any attempt at de escalation. Even if state actors pause, proxies can continue fighting, making the war structurally difficult to stop.

Gulf States: The Exposed Frontline

To me, the Gulf states are the biggest losers in this war. Not primary combatants, but they are strategic victims and stakeholders.

Iranian retaliatory strikes on oil and gas facilities in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait highlight their vulnerability. 

These states are critical to global energy supply, meaning that attacks on them:

• Disrupt international markets

• Amplify economic instability

• Risk of drawing more countries into the conflict

They represent the war’s economic fault line.

Russia and China: The Quiet Stakeholders

Though not directly engaged militarily, both Russia and China play indirect roles:

• Providing diplomatic cover or strategic support to Iran

• Benefiting from U.S. distraction in the Middle East

Their involvement reflects a broader geopolitical reality: the conflict is not isolated; it is part of great power competition.

Cyber Actors: The Invisible Front

Beyond missiles and airstrikes, the war is also being fought in cyberspace.

Cyber operations have:

• Disrupted command systems

• Targeted infrastructure

• Expanded the battlefield globally

This dimension ensures that the conflict is not geographically confined, it is borderless and continuous. 

Conclusion: A War That Feeds Itself.

The most dangerous feature of the U.S.–Israel–Iran war is the fact that there is not a single actor that can determine how things can go. It is the self reinforcing cycle of escalation:

• Israel expands the battlefield

• Iran prolongs and diffuses the conflict

• The United States sustains it while trying to contain it

• Proxies multiply its fronts

• Energy markets globalize its consequences

The result is a war with no clear off ramp, where each actor’s strategy ensures the others cannot easily disengage.

In that sense, the greatest threat to world peace is no longer just military power, it is the absence of a shared limit to escalation.