Developments in Iran are of direct importance to Armenia as well. Any instability in Iran can create serious risks for Armenia’s security, economy, and communication routes. In recent days, tensions have escalated after Donald Trump stated that the United States would take “very decisive steps” if Iranian authorities begin executing protesters opposing the government.
At the same time, the international community is receiving mixed signals. On one hand, videos and testimonies have emerged suggesting the use of live weapons during clashes. On the other, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and several other countries have appealed to the White House, urging restraint from military action against Iran. Their primary concern is the oil market and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which could trigger global economic shocks and also harm the US economy.
Against this backdrop, the key question remains unanswered: will Washington resort to a sharp military move? According to political analyst Ara Poghosyan, the processes at play are far deeper than they may appear at first glance.
Oil Insurance and the Venezuela Factor
Poghosyan does not consider it coincidental that the United States reopened the “Venezuela case” before moving into an active phase on Iran. In his view, Washington first sought to insure itself in the oil market.
He notes that the first deal involved oil shipments from Venezuela to the United States. Venezuela possesses vast oil reserves of significant global importance.
According to Poghosyan, the United States does not operate on a short-term or episodic logic. It follows a clear strategy and understands precisely when and which steps must be taken within that framework.
Have the Iran Scenarios Already Been Decided?
Discussing a potential strike, Poghosyan says that the main scenarios regarding Iran were essentially determined back in December, during Donald Trump’s meeting with Israel’s leadership.
He does not believe that there has been a radical revision of these scenarios. Initially, the option of regime collapse through internal unrest combined with maximum external pressure was considered, but that scenario has effectively failed.
Under current conditions, the second option — a military scenario — is being taken increasingly seriously. In recent days, this approach has begun to be perceived in the United States as a realistic one.
Saudi Appeals Are Not a Decisive Factor
Poghosyan is convinced that appeals from Saudi Arabia, Oman, or other countries cannot significantly alter US policy on Iran.
Iran, he argues, holds exceptional importance in contemporary US strategy. Many assume that these actions are driven solely by Israel’s interests, but Israel, in this context, represents only the outer layer.
At its core, Poghosyan emphasizes, this is about a long-term US strategy aimed at systemic change in Iran.
The Ultimate Goal: A Secular State
According to Poghosyan, the strategic objective of Washington and Tel Aviv is to transform the format of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The final goal, he says, is an Iran as a secular state — one with which negotiations would be easier and more predictable.
Thus, a potential strike on Iran should not be viewed as an emotional or situational move. It fits squarely within the long-term political calculations of the United States, and the real question is not whether it will happen, but when and in what form.