The war in the Middle East is moving beyond exchanges of strikes between individual countries. According to expert Elijah Magnier, Iran’s latest actions indicate preparations for a broader confrontation — above all, for a new phase of war with Israel.
He considers the nature and geography of Iranian strikes to be the key change.
Tehran has begun striking US facilities in Jordan, American ships and related maritime routes more actively.
At the same time, oil tankers are being targeted, while on another front the situation around Yemen, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Hormuz is rapidly escalating.
“Iran is truly ready to go into a broader war,” Magnier believes.
In his assessment, Jordan occupies a special place in this strategy.
The United States has deployed a significant number of missile defense systems there, which could be used to defend Israel in the event of a war between Iran and Israel.
Therefore, according to the expert, Tehran is trying to force the Americans to expend these resources before a direct confrontation with Israel begins.
Strikes on Jordan as Preparation for the Next Phase
Magnier draws attention to the fact that Iran has, for the first time, launched heavy missile strikes simultaneously against US facilities in several areas of Jordan.
In effect, this was not simply an attack but an attempt to place a heavy burden on the US interception system.
Ballistic and hypersonic missiles equipped with cluster warheads play a special role, in his view.
After reaching a certain altitude, such warheads disperse a large number of smaller munitions, making the work of missile defense systems considerably more difficult.
The expert compares the situation to trying to “hit a bullet with another bullet”: intercepting a single missile may require several interceptor missiles.
Launching such a large number of missiles therefore forces the defending side to rapidly expend expensive missile defense assets.
According to Magnier, this may be one of the objectives of Iran’s current tactics.
“The Iranians want to create a situation in which only minimal missile defense systems remain outside Israel that could help the Israelis,” the expert explained.
In this context, strikes on Jordan acquire much greater significance, extending far beyond Jordan itself.
They become part of preparations for a possible war between Iran and Israel.
Magnier believes the likelihood of another direct confrontation between the two countries is high.
He also links the possible timing of further escalation to Israel’s political situation and the approaching elections.
The Tanker War Is Returning
Another dangerous element of the current escalation is attacks on oil tankers.
According to the expert, the United States has already destroyed several Iranian tankers, while Tehran has responded by attacking American ships and related maritime transportation.
The problem is that Washington now faces a choice with no good solution.
If the US military begins escorting tankers, American forces themselves become potential targets.
If they refuse to provide escorts, the risk of further disruption to maritime transportation and a sharp rise in oil prices increases.
Magnier draws a parallel with the “Tanker War” of the 1980s in the Strait of Hormuz.
In his view, the current situation could become even more dangerous because a single missile strike on an American ship could be enough to take the conflict to a new level.
Against this backdrop, rising oil prices are becoming part of a broader problem.
The expert notes that this concerns crude oil itself, not merely gasoline or diesel fuel.
At the same time, available fuel stocks are declining, while the approach of winter increases pressure on the global economy.
Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb Could Connect Several Fronts
Magnier believes the danger of the current situation is not limited to the US-Iran confrontation.
New and interconnected conflict zones are emerging around key maritime routes.
On one side is the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil flows passes.
On the other is Bab el-Mandeb, where the conflict involving Yemen and Saudi Arabia continues to develop.
The expert believes Iran is effectively linking these directions into a single system of pressure.
Tehran is already declaring its readiness to respond to an economic blockade by establishing its own maritime zone, which Magnier views as an attempt to create a form of buffer zone around the Strait of Hormuz.
According to him, Iran is applying the same logic previously used by the United States and Israel: preventive strikes and the creation of buffer zones are presented as permissible instruments of warfare.
The Yemen front is developing particularly rapidly, in the expert’s view.
He believes the Saudi-Yemeni conflict never fully ended after previous attempts to establish a ceasefire.
Sanctions and the blockade against Yemen continue, and Magnier therefore views the Houthis’ current strikes as a continuation of an existing war rather than a new act of aggression.
Why Diplomacy Is Still Losing to War
Despite the dangers of military escalation, Magnier believes negotiations with Iran are the only real way out for the United States.
However, this is precisely where he sees the main problem.
The expert believes Donald Trump views the conflict as a personal confrontation and is unwilling to accept an agreement that could be portrayed as a concession to Iran.
As a result, Magnier argues, Washington has found itself in a situation where continuing the war is becoming increasingly costly, while politically acknowledging the need for compromise remains difficult.
The expert is also critical of Trump’s inner circle.
In his view, the US president has effectively been left without a team capable of offering an alternative strategy or openly challenging his decisions.
Instead, Magnier believes, key figures in the US administration largely support the president’s position.
For this reason, the diplomatic option that could stop further escalation remains unlikely.
“The way out is to sit at the negotiating table and accept a bad deal for the United States instead of continuing the war,” the expert believes.
But Trump, in his assessment, is still not ready to take such a step.
As a result, every new strike raises the cost of the next move.