These factors now serve as two decisive elements, introducing new dimensions to the confrontation between the United States and Iran, Salah al-Zubaidi told IQNA in an interview.

Rapid developments in West Asia—following acts of aggression by the US and the Zionist regime against Iran, most notably the 40-day war that began on February 28, 2026—have pushed the region’s political and security dynamics into a critical phase. Ongoing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, the potential for renewed conflict, the complex interplay of negotiations and disputes between Tehran and Washington, alongside developments regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and the front in Yemen, have cast serious uncertainty over the region's future. In this context, IQNA spoke with Salah al-Zubaidi, a member of the Iraqi Journalists Syndicate and an analyst specializing in West Asian affairs, to examine these developments and potential future scenarios.

The text of this interview is as follows:                             

IQNA: Given Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding the possibility of renewed conflict with Iran—occurring alongside ongoing efforts toward negotiation and reaching an agreement—how do you assess the current US approach? Could the rising costs of war push Trump toward negotiation and a deal, or will he continue to pursue the military option?

Al-Zubaidi: I believe that what we are witnessing today reflects a clear contradiction in US behavior. On one hand, we hear Trump’s threats to resume military operations; on the other, channels for negotiation and mediation remain active. This indicates that Washington has not yet finalized its stance regarding the path it intends to pursue—whether military or diplomatic.

Threatening the use of military force does not necessarily equate to possessing the capability required to achieve political objectives through war. The United States entered this confrontation with a specific set of goals; however, the persistence of the conflict and the widening scope of its economic and security repercussions raise serious questions about the costs of this confrontation and the outcomes that might realistically be attained.

Economic factors—most notably the energy crisis and its impact on global markets—will play a significant role in US calculations. The conflict is no longer merely a limited military engagement between two parties; it has evolved into a crisis with international dimensions and consequences, with costs that extend well beyond the immediate theater of confrontation. Consequently, negotiation remains a realistic option for Washington. Yet, for this path to succeed, the US must abandon the policy of imposing its demands on Iran—a nation that cannot be coerced into accepting American terms through threats and pressure.

It is important to clarify that Iran is not opposed to negotiation. Rather, it rejects the notion of negotiations serving as an extension of war by other political means, or being used as a tool to extract concessions and force a retreat through the application of military and economic pressure.

IQNA: How do you assess the resistance of the Iranian people in the face of American-Zionist aggression, the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian armed forces, and the impact of these two factors on the dynamics of the conflict and the calculations of the United States and its allies?

Al-Zubaidi: First and foremost, the steadfastness and resilience of the Iranian nation cannot be examined in isolation from the historical and political experience the nation has accumulated over several decades. Iran has faced sanctions, blockades, various forms of pressure, and threats; throughout this period, it has developed and built up national institutions and capabilities that have assisted the country in navigating its path forward and confronting crises.

During a hypothetical forty-day conflict, the challenge would not be limited solely to the military dimension; rather, it would encompass the cohesion of the domestic front, the continued functioning of state institutions, and the capacity of society to endure wartime conditions.

Read More:

The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a geographical waterway; it stands as one of the most critical strategic arteries of the global economy. Any disruption to maritime traffic through this strait would directly impact oil and energy markets, as well as international trade. From a strategic perspective, the significance of the Strait lies in its ability to shift the scope of confrontation—moving it beyond the boundaries of direct military engagement to a level that affects the global economy—a factor that increases the cost of sustaining the conflict for the United States and its allies.

This equation must also be viewed through the lens of the responsibility shared by all parties regarding maritime security, the protection of civilians, and the stability of the global economy. The Iranian experience demonstrated that military and technological superiority alone are not sufficient to determine the outcome of wars; rather, a nation’s capacity for resilience, the management of its resources, and the maintenance of internal cohesion are fundamental elements in the power equation.

IQNA: Please discuss Iran’s self-reliance—as demonstrated during the 12-day and 40-day wars—and the extent to which this strategy has enabled Iran to maintain its capacity for resistance and its independence in decision-making in the face of pressure from the United States and the Zionist regime.

Al-Zubaidi: Self-reliance has been one of the most significant strategic lessons learned by the Islamic Republic in its confrontation with sanctions, external pressures, and successive wars. From its early years (after the 1979 Islamic Revolution), Iran realized that a nation which ties its security and military capabilities to the will of foreign powers will inevitably remain vulnerable to extortion and political pressure. Consequently, the country moved toward developing its own national capabilities across sectors such as defense industries, technology, scientific research, and military production.

In the military sphere, Iran invested heavily in the development of missile capabilities, drones, and defense systems. Economically, it sought to create domestic alternatives and reduce reliance on foreign sources—though sanctions continue to impose major challenges on the nation’s economy. Furthermore, in the realm of diplomacy, Iran has maintained a network of regional and international relations, striving to diversify its partnerships rather than limiting its options to the Western bloc.

The experience of the 12-day and 40-day wars provides a crucial context for evaluating this strategy; while these conflicts underscored the importance of possessing national capabilities and the ability to sustain a confrontation, they also revealed challenges regarding the protection of infrastructure, vital facilities, and defense assets.

It should be noted, however, that there is a distinction between self-reliance and isolation. Iran is not required to turn its back on the world; rather, it must build an independent national power that enables it to negotiate and cooperate from a position of equality. In my view, true independence is not measured solely by what a nation possesses—such as armaments—but rather by its capacity to make its own political decisions, free from foreign dictates. This constitutes the most significant strategic value of a policy of self-reliance.

IQNA: What is your perspective on the current developments in Yemen and the confrontation with Saudi Arabia?

Al-Zubaidi: The events unfolding in Yemen are inseparable from broader regional developments, as well as the nature of Yemen’s internal conflict—a conflict that, over the years, has become entangled with numerous regional and international interventions.

Several factors underlie the current escalation in tensions, most notably: the failure of the political process; the resurgence of competition for strategic territories—particularly coastal regions and maritime corridors; and the repercussions of the regional confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

Read More:

It is important to note that relations between Sana’a and Riyadh have previously undergone various phases of de-escalation and negotiation. However, recent developments on the ground have brought confrontation back to the forefront—evidenced by the resumption of attacks on Saudi territory and Saudi airstrikes within Yemen. From the perspective championed by Ansarallah, this conflict is fundamentally tied to the issue of Yemeni sovereignty and opposition to foreign interference; Riyadh, conversely, maintains that its actions are taken to safeguard its security, borders, and vital infrastructure. What is concerning is that the confrontation is no longer confined to traditional front lines; it has expanded to include economic infrastructure and maritime corridors—a development that carries the risk of widening the scope of the conflict. The solution cannot be purely military; Yemen requires a comprehensive political agreement that preserves its sovereignty and territorial integrity, while putting an end to the external interventions that have contributed to the prolongation of the war.

IQNA: In your view, how far will Ansarullah continue its advances on the battlefield, and to what extent do these advances consolidate the movement’s position?

Al-Zubaidi: In my opinion, we are witnessing a phase involving the realignment of regional balances, rather than merely a transient round of military conflict. The region is currently the site of several intersecting issues: the confrontation between the United States and Iran, energy security, the conflict in Yemen, the security of the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the Palestinian question.

These issues are not isolated; they are interconnected, and any escalation in one inevitably impacts the others. As for Ansarullah, the movement has demonstrated over the past few years that it has become an influential actor in the dynamics of both Yemen and the broader region. It is no longer merely a local force that can be overlooked when discussing the future of Yemen.

The significance of this movement’s strategic position within Yemen’s geography—particularly its command over the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, one of the world’s most vital commercial and maritime arteries—is profound. The future of this movement, and the potential expansion of its capabilities, hinges on several factors: its ability to govern the territories under its influence, maintain internal cohesion, engage with other Yemeni factions, and navigate the dynamics of regional and international balances of power.

However, the movement’s ongoing activities cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader trajectory of the war and political developments. While the movement characterizes its struggle as a defense of Yemen and its national interests, regional and international actors perceive these actions as a threat to maritime security and regional stability. Consequently, the region faces several potential scenarios: de-escalation and political accommodation, a continued war of attrition, or an expansion of the conflict into new arenas.

The core message that must be conveyed to international powers is that regional security cannot be built on military might alone, nor can new political realities be imposed without regard for the interests of the region’s peoples and the sovereignty of its nations.

IQNA: In closing, is there anything else you would like to add?

Al-Zubaidi: I would like to highlight one fundamental point: the region is currently navigating a decisive juncture. What is unfolding today is not merely a dispute over military, nuclear, or economic issues; rather, it is a contest over the very structure of the regional order and the future of political balances within West Asia. Experience has demonstrated that a policy of war, sanctions, and pressure—in the face of steadfast resilience—has failed; furthermore, disregarding the will of nations and the sovereign rights of states only serves to exacerbate tensions. It is crucial to understand that Iran is not merely a negotiating file on the table of major powers; rather, it is a nation with its own history, institutions, capabilities, and national interests—a nation entitled, under international law, to defend its own security and sovereignty.

Consequently, regional stability cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of Palestine; nor is it possible without addressing the root causes of regional conflicts and abandoning the logic of interventionism and hegemony.

Imposing one’s will through force cannot yield a lasting peace. The path to stability begins with the mutual recognition of rights, sovereignty, and interests—not through attempts to bring nations to their knees or coerce them into making concessions under duress.

4388157