The events unfolding in Iran and across the entire Middle East are only the beginning of a large-scale regional crisis. This was stated by political scientist Artur Khachikyan, emphasizing that the process is driven not only by military but also by serious political miscalculations.
In his conviction, the statements and actions of US President Donald Trump indicate that Washington attempted to achieve a quick and demonstrative result, yet it collided with an entirely different reality.
Trump’s Attempt at a Quick Victory
Khachikyan noted that the US president has repeatedly publicly declared a tough approach to the Iran issue and tried to present the situation as an opportunity for a swift victory.
In the political scientist’s opinion, Trump attempted to apply the “quick triumph” model that worked in Venezuela, but in Iran’s case, such an approach could not be effective. “Iran is not Venezuela,” he stresses, adding that here we are dealing with a system that has a broad network of regional influence, is ideologically cohesive, and militarily prepared.
According to Khachikyan’s assessment, signs are already visible that Trump is trying to find a way out of the created situation by declaring readiness for negotiations if Iran meets US demands. However, Tehran has rejected such a format, and mediation attempts have also yielded no results.
Consolidation After the Strike, Not Collapse
In Khachikyan’s estimation, the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Spiritual Leader produced not a quick victory but the exact opposite result.
“By killing Khamenei, they created a martyr, and this did not divide but rather united Iranian society,” the expert emphasizes. According to him, waves of solidarity and protests are already being recorded in Shia communities and the Muslim world — in Pakistan, Iraq, as well as in the cities of Jammu and Kashmir in India.
Negotiations as a Tool to Buy Time
The political scientist recalls that negotiations were underway before the strikes, and statements were made about certain progress. The Omani representative even noted that Iran had expressed willingness to discuss limiting ballistic missiles.
However, it was precisely at this stage, when the parties were publicly talking about a possible resolution, that the strikes were carried out. According to Khachikyan, this deeply undermines future negotiation processes. “Who will be ready to trust the US or Israel if a military attack can occur during negotiations?” he questions.
In his assessment, the crisis of trust could have long-term consequences not only for Iran but for the entire regional diplomatic system.
Expanding Geography of the Conflict
According to the political scientist, the process has long ceased to be merely a confrontation between Iran and Israel. By his calculations, at least 17 countries are involved to varying degrees. In addition to Iran, Israel, and the US, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, and France are mentioned.
Khachikyan does not rule out that developments could follow the “Yemen scenario.” He recalls that weeks of bombings in Yemen failed to bring strategic victory. In Iran’s case, in his opinion, the situation could be even more complicated.
The initially announced short timelines — from a few days to four weeks — no longer seem realistic. The political scientist believes the conflict could drag on, creating new military and political pressures.
According to the expert, the coming weeks could be decisive, but it is already obvious that a process of regional restructuring is forming around Iran, the consequences of which could extend beyond the Middle East.