By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj / Kurdish Policy Analysis

From defense to attack; Why is Iran trying to expand the war?

Iran's growing use of regional proxies suggests a strategy of expanding the conflict beyond its borders to increase leverage and demonstrate power.

After any US attack on Iran, the country will respond with missile and drone attacks on Arab countries and the region, which goes within the framework of Iran's desire to escalate the war.

The latest attack by Iranian proxy forces was on an oil tanker off the coast of Egypt, while Egypt is not part of the conflict. 

Iran is in a bad situation and is trying to escalate the war, which raises the question of what interest Iran has in the escalation of the war.

Attack as part of goal accomplishment

Previously, some analysts believed that Iran was trying to force Arab countries to put pressure on the Trump administration to stop the war by attacking them.

But some analysts spoken to  believe Iran wants to escalate the war to show that it is a great power that can create instability in the region.

They say Iran wants to use this war as an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to send a message that an attack on Iran is not easy and will set the Middle East on fire.

Another aspect behind Iran's efforts to expand the war has to do with the Trump administration, which is convinced that the war has put pressure on the US president at home.

While attention to US internal problems occupied an important space in Trump's election campaign, but now there is an opinion inside the United States that the president is looking for war to remove pressure on him.

The US president's speech suggests that he is addicted to the situation, so there are ups and downs in his speeches, but the situation has just reached a point where leaving Iran will cause serious injuries to the United States.

From Defence to Escalation: Why Is Iran Expanding the War Beyond Its Borders?

For years, Iran's military strategy was largely based on deterrence and defence. Tehran sought to avoid direct confrontation with the United States while relying on proxy forces across the Middle East to deter attacks and project influence. Today, however, the conflict appears to be entering a new phase.

Following any direct U.S. strike on Iranian territory, Tehran has signalled that its response would not necessarily be confined to American military assets. Instead, it has repeatedly indicated that missile and drone attacks could target Arab countries and other regional actors, suggesting a deliberate effort to widen the conflict.

The latest reported example was an attack on an oil tanker off the Egyptian coast by Iranian-linked proxy forces. Egypt is not directly involved in the current confrontation, yet the incident highlights a broader trend: expanding the battlefield beyond the immediate parties to the conflict.

The question is obvious.

Why would Iran seek to broaden a war at a time when it is already under intense military, economic, and diplomatic pressure?

From Defence to Escalation

At first glance, expanding the conflict appears counterproductive.

Iran faces significant economic sanctions, sustained military pressure, and growing diplomatic isolation. Opening additional fronts could expose Tehran to greater retaliation and deepen its strategic challenges.

Yet from Iran's perspective, escalation may offer several potential advantages.

Rather than allowing the conflict to remain a bilateral confrontation with the United States or Israel, Tehran seeks to transform it into a regional crisis in which multiple governments face direct security threats. The wider the conflict becomes, the more difficult it is for Iran's adversaries to isolate Tehran politically or militarily.

Attack as Part of Goal Accomplishment

Earlier in the conflict, many analysts argued that attacks on Gulf states were primarily intended to pressure Arab governments into urging Washington to halt military operations.

The logic was straightforward.

If Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or other regional partners feared becoming targets themselves, they might use diplomatic channels to encourage de-escalation and restrain U.S. military action.

While that explanation remains plausible, a growing number of analysts now believe Tehran's objectives extend further.

Rather than simply seeking diplomatic pressure on Washington, Iran may also be attempting to demonstrate that it remains a regional power capable of disrupting security, trade, and energy markets despite sustained military pressure.

In other words, escalation itself becomes part of Iran's strategic messaging.

Projecting Strength During Weakness

Iran currently faces one of the most challenging strategic environments in decades.

Military pressure, economic constraints, and internal political uncertainty have all reduced its room for manoeuvre.

Under such circumstances, demonstrating the ability to create instability across the region can serve an important psychological and political purpose.

If Tehran can convince its adversaries that any military campaign against Iran will inevitably produce regional consequences—from attacks on shipping lanes to strikes against energy infrastructure—it raises the costs of continued confrontation.

This is a classic strategy of deterrence through escalation.

Rather than winning a conventional military contest, Iran seeks to convince its opponents that the price of conflict will become too high to sustain.

The Risks of Expanding the Battlefield

However, escalation carries significant risks.

Targeting countries that are not direct participants in the conflict could encourage additional regional governments to align more closely with the United States or Israel.

Attacks on commercial shipping or oil infrastructure also threaten global energy markets, potentially prompting a stronger international response.

Moreover, every new front increases the possibility of miscalculation.

A strike intended as a warning could instead trigger broader military retaliation, drawing more states into an already volatile regional crisis.

A New Phase of Regional Competition

Whether Iran's strategy succeeds remains uncertain.

If Tehran's objective is to increase diplomatic pressure for a ceasefire, expanding the conflict may produce leverage.

If, however, regional governments interpret these attacks as evidence that Iran itself has become the principal source of instability, the strategy could instead strengthen international efforts to contain Iranian influence.

Either outcome suggests that the Middle East is entering a new phase in which conflict is no longer confined to traditional battlefields.

Shipping lanes, energy infrastructure, proxy networks, and neighbouring states have all become potential theatres of confrontation.

Conclusion

Iran's recent actions indicate that the country's military doctrine is evolving from one focused primarily on defence and deterrence toward one that increasingly accepts controlled regional escalation as a strategic instrument.

Whether this approach ultimately enhances Iran's bargaining position or accelerates broader regional confrontation will depend on how its adversaries respond.

One point, however, is becoming increasingly clear: the conflict is no longer solely about Iran's defence. It is also about shaping the strategic environment across the Middle East by demonstrating that any war with Tehran will carry consequences far beyond Iran's borders.

Further reading

➜ Related: "Political and Religious Geography of East Kurdistan: Where Are the Kurdish Forces in the Equation?"

Iran's regional strategy cannot be understood without examining the geography surrounding its borders. As discussed in this earlier analysis, Tehran's security calculations are closely linked to developments in Iraq, Syria, and the Kurdish regions. Proxy networks, border security, and ethnic politics form part of a wider strategy that allows Iran to project influence well beyond its own territory. Understanding this geopolitical landscape helps explain why regional escalation has become an increasingly important component of Tehran's military doctrine.

➜ Related: "Beyond Oil: How the Strait of Hormuz Crisis Could Quietly Redraw Iraq's Economic Future with GCC Trade"

Any expansion of the conflict threatens more than military stability—it also jeopardises regional commerce and global energy flows. In this earlier article, I argued that prolonged instability around the Strait of Hormuz could reshape Iraq's economic priorities by accelerating alternative trade corridors with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). As attacks increasingly target shipping and energy infrastructure, the economic consequences of regional escalation become as significant as the military ones.

#Iran #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #RegionalSecurity #MilitaryStrategy