When the calm is broken... who pays the price for escalation?

The calm that characterized the region in recent weeks was not evidence that the crisis between the United States and Iran had ended, but rather a fragile truce that postponed confrontation without addressing its root causes. After nearly a month of reduced direct clashes, US strikes against Iranian targets resumed, prompting Tehran to respond militarily and plunging the region back into a cycle of escalation with unpredictable boundaries.

The latest round began after the United States targeted Iranian military sites on Larak Island. Washington announced that the operation was in response to threats related to the planting of mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated by targeting Gulf states, thereby shifting the crisis once again from a US-Iranian confrontation to a direct threat to regional security.

The most pressing question is: why did escalation resume after a period of calm? In my personal assessment, the primary reason is that the calm did not yield a political agreement addressing the roots of the crisis. Disagreements persist regarding navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, economic pressure, the nuclear file, and the conditions for returning to negotiations. In the absence of a genuine settlement, any military incident can quickly bring both sides back to confrontation.

The second reason is the United States’ continued use of military and economic pressure to force Iran to alter its calculations. In response, Tehran attempts to counter this pressure by demonstrating its ability to raise the cost of confrontation regionally. However, expanding the scope of retaliation to include the territories of Gulf states and Jordan constitutes a dangerous development, as countries in the region should not become arenas for settling scores between Washington and Tehran.

Here, the position must be clear: regardless of the differences between Iran and the United States, targeting Gulf states or threatening their territories, facilities, and interests cannot be justified merely as a response to US operations. The sovereignty of Gulf states and the security of their peoples are not bargaining chips in the negotiations between the two sides.

Kuwait has clearly expressed this principle, condemning Iran’s recent attacks on Arab and Gulf states as violations of sovereignty and threats to regional security, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of respecting international law and resolving disputes through peaceful means.

As for the repercussions, the most serious is the risk that limited escalation could transform into a broader regional confrontation. Each strike invites a response, and each response may pave the way for a larger strike, thereby trapping the region in a difficult-to-break cycle if effective political channels are absent.

Energy and navigation security are at the forefront of these risks. The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a waterway in a political crisis, but a strategic artery for the global economy. Ship traffic through the strait has already seen a noticeable decline amid rising tensions.

At the same time, deterrence alone does not create lasting stability. The Gulf interest requires preventing the region from becoming an open battlefield, while fully upholding the right of states to protect their sovereignty and security.

What is happening today confirms that the month of calm was not the end of the crisis, but rather a brief interlude between two rounds. Unless the causes of the conflict are addressed, periods of calm will remain temporary, and the region will remain exposed to a return to square one at any moment.