TEHRAN – In a comprehensive analysis published by The National Interest, Dr. Marwa Maziad – an assistant professor of Israel Studies at the University of Maryland – argues that the ongoing war between Iran and the US-Israeli axis is fundamentally reordering West Asia. Most strikingly, she concludes that regardless of the war's outcome, the Arab Persian Gulf states will be the clear losers.

According to Dr. Maziad, what is unfolding is not a conventional regional escalation. Rather, it is a structural transformation that has already begun reshaping the security geography of the Persian Gulf. The conflict has expanded into maritime spaces – including the Strait of Hormuz – and integrated Persian Gulf infrastructure directly into the operational theater. High-value urban centers such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi are no longer peripheral to the conflict; they have become part of it.

The analysis reveals that the Israeli regime's strategic objective extends far beyond containing Iran's nuclear or missile capabilities. According to Dr. Maziad, the deeper goal is to consolidate regional military primacy across the Levant, Iraq, parts of the Arabian Peninsula, and adjacent maritime corridors. This, the author states plainly, is classical territorial and ideological expansionism.

Furthermore, the article explains that this represents an outsourcing of US dominance. Washington's ability to define escalation thresholds, set red lines, and enforce deterrence asymmetry is increasingly delegated to the Israeli regime – enabling a policy of US withdrawal from West Asia and a strategic shift toward Cuba, Greenland, and the Pacific. In this new structure, Israel functions less as a traditional state and more as the central security node around which the region is organized.

Dr. Maziad critically examines Washington's initial war strategy, describing it as a failed attempt to apply the "Venezuela model" to Iran. The Trump administration assumed that rapid, coercive strikes would destabilize Iran's leadership and force rapid concessions without sustained US entanglement. This assumption, the author writes, has proven structurally incompatible with the Iran theater.

Instead of rapid decapitation, the war has produced distributed escalation onto the Persian Gulf states, sustained missile and drone attacks, and increasing exposure of infrastructure in third-party states. As a result, Washington is now gravitating toward a strategic exit through burden transfer – reframed as "America First" – while operational responsibility shifts to Israel.

Of particular interest to Iranian readers, Dr. Maziad explains why Persian Gulf state neutrality – especially that of the UAE – was never sufficient. From Tehran's perspective, not allowing attacks from one's territory does not absolve a state if it is politically aligned with the war effort. Iran targeted the UAE more frequently because Iran saw it as the Persian Gulf state most strategically aligned with Israel, particularly during the war in Gaza. Normalization and deep security coordination created the perception of involvement, even without direct military participation.

The article also warns of catastrophic escalation pathways, including strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility, which could trigger retaliation against civilian nuclear installations in Abu Dhabi – leading to radiation leakage and long-term contamination of shared Persian Gulf waters.

While the author advises Washington to avoid full delegation to Israel and pursue a multi-vector strategy, the clear finding remains: the US-Israeli war has already restructured regional hierarchies. The Persian Gulf is already inside this transformation. Whether through Iranian resilience, Israeli "success," or American withdrawal, the Arab Persian Gulf states face a strategic erosion from which there is no return.