Israel's actions are too extreme, Iran is going all out to fight back, and the entire Middle East is being dragged into the chaos.

（Source: War Situation Watch）

The situation in the Middle East has been tense for a long time, but no matter how much the sides have fought in the past, each side still left a little room for maneuver. Critical lifelines such as energy facilities and shipping lanes are rarely used directly as targets for attacks, because everyone understands that once these places are hit, it becomes extremely difficult to control the conflict. What happened recently, however, clearly crossed this line. Israel launched strikes on Iran’s energy facilities, directly overturning the previously balanced situation that could still be maintained. Now that events have reached this point, the question is no longer who is stronger and who is weaker, but who first drags the entire region into even greater turmoil.

Israel’s action this time has a very clear target: its aim is Iran’s energy system. Iran’s oil and natural gas industry is an important pillar of the national economy and also a key tool for its influence abroad. Striking this sector is, in essence, not a simple military move, but a direct blow to the lifeline of the state. This kind of approach is not common in Middle East conflicts. Over the past several decades, the Middle East has seen many wars and confrontations, but oil and gas systems typically are not systematically destroyed. The reason is simple: once these facilities are drawn into the fighting, the impact will not be confined to the battlefield—it will quickly spread throughout the region. Energy prices, shipping security, and the regional economy will all be hit.

Israel’s choice to break this red line is obviously calculated. Tel Aviv’s logic is not complicated. On the one hand, it hopes to weaken Iran’s strategic capabilities through high-intensity strikes; on the other hand, it is also betting that its opponent will not dare to fully escalate the conflict. Israel has long relied on military advantages to maintain initiative, and this way of thinking has indeed worked in past clashes many times. The problem is that this kind of bet is extremely risky, because it touches the opponent’s most sensitive interests. Once the other side determines that making concessions will only lead to greater losses, the situation will quickly slide into a loss of control.

Tehran’s stance is actually not complicated either. If energy facilities are attacked, the response cannot remain at the symbolic level. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards quickly issued warnings to Gulf countries, directly mentioning regional oil facilities and also requiring relevant personnel to evacuate. This kind of statement is not diplomatic phrasing; it is more like a prewar signal. Here, a clear change has emerged: Iran’s targets for retaliation are no longer focused only on Israel, but have begun to expand across the entire region. Named countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These countries have important energy facilities in the Gulf region, and they are also key partners of the United States in the Middle East.

Tehran’s logic is not complicated. If these countries’ infrastructure is used to support military actions against Iran, then they are no longer bystanders—they become part of the conflict. In this way, the nature of the situation changes: what was originally a point-to-point confrontation could potentially become an end-to-end conflict. Once energy facilities are brought within the scope of attacks, the entire Gulf region would be dragged into danger. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries do not want to get pulled into a full-scale war, but the reality is that as long as the conflict expands, it will be difficult for them to stay completely outside it. The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is complex by nature, and whenever any key node goes wrong, it triggers a chain reaction.

Iran’s strategy at this time carries a clear intent to break the deadlock. Since it is bearing pressure, it will spread the risk outward—so that more countries feel the impact—thereby forcing the situation to be reshuffled. This approach is highly aggressive, but when pushed into a corner, many countries tend to make similar choices.

If energy facilities in the Gulf region truly enter an attack-and-reprisal cycle, the consequences would not stop at the Middle East. The global energy market is highly dependent on this region, with large amounts of oil and natural gas shipped from here to all parts of the world. Any substantive disruption will quickly affect international markets. An increase in oil prices is just a surface reaction; a bigger problem lies in supply security. Once market expectations begin to wobble, financial markets and the shipping system will be hit as well. Uncertainty in energy transportation will raise shipping costs, and it will also affect manufacturers in various countries and inflation levels.

There is an even more sensitive point: the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes. A large amount of oil enters the international market through here. As soon as the situation escalates to a certain degree, this shipping lane will face enormous risk. Even if it is not fully blocked, as long as shipping safety is threatened, global energy supply will be affected. In other words, once the Middle East conflict touches the energy system, it is no longer a regional issue—it becomes a global one. Countries around the world will be impacted. Whether in Europe, Asia, or other regions, no one can completely avoid this storm.

This conflict is not simply an Israel–Iran standoff. The United States has maintained a military presence in the Middle East for a long time and has close ties with Israel—everyone knows this. Many actions behind Israel have U.S. support and tacit approval, and the military forces Washington has deployed in the Middle East provide Israel with important security assurances. The U.S. strategic thinking has always been clear: maintain regional dominance while containing Iran’s influence. Against this backdrop, Israel’s hardline actions often manage to gain support.

In the short term, this strategy can indeed sustain a certain advantage. The problem is that this method keeps crossing red lines and will consume the space for stability in the region. Each time a conflict escalates, it becomes even harder to control the situation. The United States may be able to withstand external shocks, but Middle Eastern countries do not have that kind of cushion. Their economic structures and geographic positions determine that once the energy system is damaged, the losses will be very direct. There is also a real issue: when necessary, the United States can adjust its strategy and even withdraw part of its forces, but regional countries do not have such an option. Once the conflict expands into a full-scale confrontation, the Middle East itself will bear the cost first.

The Middle East never lacks conflicts, but what is truly dangerous is dragging energy and shipping lanes into war. Once these lifelines are used as weapons, the situation loses its boundaries. With this strike, Israel pushed the contradictions to an extreme, and Iran has no way out either. If the situation continues to escalate, the entire Gulf region will be drawn into a vortex. The most terrifying part of war has never been the shellfire—it is when someone treats the entire region as chips on a gambling table.

Some materials sourced from: Xinhua Net, Minnan Net, Xin Huanghe