Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Iranian Profsessor Mohammad Marandi warn that Washington's economic warfare against Iran could deepen the global energy crisis, destabilize Saudi Arabia, and push the United States toward renewed military escalation.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen's The Grand Standoff: Iran and the World, Marandi and Ritter warned that the United States' efforts to weaken Iran through military aggression and economic warfare are increasingly threatening Washington's own interests and the stability of its regional allies.

Both analysts argued that the US-Israeli war on Iran has failed to achieve its strategic objectives, leaving Washington increasingly dependent on economic pressure to secure concessions from Tehran.

They warned, however, that Iran's response, particularly restrictions on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, was intensifying global energy shortages and placing additional pressure on the United States and Gulf governments.

US military strategy against Iran has failed: Ritter

Ritter argued that US President Donald Trump faces growing domestic pressure as rising energy costs and disruptions to global fuel supplies continue to strain the American economy.

He pointed to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, Yemen's operations affecting Saudi energy infrastructure and maritime traffic, and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war as interconnected factors contributing to the crisis.

According to Ritter, Washington's attempts to mitigate the disruption through temporary arrangements, including efforts to secure additional diesel supplies, have failed to address its underlying causes.

"The military solution offered by Israel is no solution," he said, arguing that renewed aggression against Iran would only worsen the economic consequences of the confrontation.

Iran's military resilience exposes US limitations

Ritter maintained that US and Israeli forces have already employed their conventional military capabilities without achieving their objectives, while Iran had adapted its defensive and offensive capabilities throughout the conflict.

"Iran is stronger. We're weaker. I think that we have to take this into account."

He further argued that Iran has drawn lessons from previous confrontations, particularly regarding US and Israeli missile defense systems, while Washington faced increasingly serious limitations in its ammunition reserves.

In Ritter's assessment, these developments have undermined the prospect of a decisive US military victory and strengthened Iran's strategic position.

Economic warfare against Iran backfiring on Washington

Professor Marandi agreed with Ritter's assessment, arguing that Washington had increasingly placed its hopes on an Iranian economic collapse after failing to achieve its objectives through military force.

"The only thing left is the hope for economic collapse," he said, maintaining that predictions of Iran's imminent economic breakdown had failed to materialize.

He acknowledged the economic hardships imposed on ordinary Iranians but rejected the assumption that continued US pressure would force the country into submission.

Hormuz disruptions intensify economic pressure on Washington

Marandi further argued that Iran's response was instead creating mounting economic difficulties for Washington and its allies, particularly through growing disruptions to energy exports from the Gulf.

He pointed to shortages of crude oil, liquefied natural gas, sulfur, helium, and other petrochemical products, saying that disruptions had accelerated as Iran intensified its operations against vessels violating its restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Marandi, the reduction in maritime traffic was increasingly affecting global markets, undermining Washington's attempts to isolate the Iranian economy.

He further suggested that Tehran's economic pressure could have political consequences for Trump ahead of the November 3 US midterm elections, although he emphasized that influencing the elections was not an officially declared Iranian policy.

Ritter similarly argued that Washington was betting on Iran's economy collapsing before the consequences of the energy crisis became unbearable for the United States and its partners.

He described that strategy as a dangerous gamble, particularly given the vulnerabilities facing Saudi Arabia.

Saudi monarchy faces mounting threat amid Yemen escalation

Both analysts warned that Saudi Arabia could face severe political and economic consequences as its confrontation with Yemen coincides with the broader US-Israeli war on Iran.

Ritter suggested that the Saudi monarchy was potentially more vulnerable to destabilization than Iran, questioning whether Washington had considered the regional consequences of such an outcome.

"I don't think it's a matter of if the House of Saud falls. I believe it's a question of when the House of Saud falls."

He warned that the collapse of the Saudi monarchy could trigger far-reaching consequences for other Gulf governments, particularly those dependent on US military protection and hydrocarbon revenues.

Marandi warns Yemen escalation threatens Saudi stability

Marandi echoed those concerns, arguing that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman's decision to escalate aggression against Yemen had exposed the kingdom to growing pressure.

He maintained that the combination of Iranian economic pressure and Yemeni military operations was increasingly threatening Saudi infrastructure and the stability of the kingdom's leadership.

Marandi also recalled Saudi Arabia's earlier military campaign against Yemen, criticizing Riyadh's decision to pursue another confrontation despite the consequences of its previous intervention.

He warned that a prolonged conflict involving Iran and Yemen could threaten the survival of the Saudi monarchy, with repercussions extending to other US-aligned governments across the region.

"If Saudi Arabia falls, none of these tiny regimes in our region will survive," he said.

Renewed US aggression or a diplomatic settlement?

Despite their shared assessment of Washington's strategic difficulties, Ritter and Marandi offered different perspectives on how the confrontation could develop.

Ritter argued that the United States would eventually have to recognize the limitations of its military and economic power and pursue a negotiated settlement with Iran.

He maintained that Tehran was seeking guarantees against renewed aggression rather than regional domination and suggested that a diplomatic arrangement allowing Washington a face-saving exit remained possible.

The former UN weapons inspector also warned that prolonging the confrontation could produce increasingly severe consequences for the global economy.

"This war cannot go on forever. The bottom line is, the global economy will collapse if this goes on, and the United States will have to adjust accordingly."

Marandi warns Trump could pursue further escalation

Marandi, however, expressed greater skepticism about Washington's willingness to accept a diplomatic settlement.

He pointed to the existing memorandum of understanding as a potential means of ending the confrontation but argued that Trump was unlikely to accept such an agreement under current circumstances.

"And even though there is a way out, there is an off-ramp, and that is to accept the MoU," he said.

According to Marandi, the failure of Washington's economic pressure campaign could instead encourage another military assault on Iran, particularly if the Trump administration concludes that continued economic restrictions will not produce the political results it seeks.

"The only way forward left for him, I suppose, is escalation."

Both analysts ultimately maintained that the continuing confrontation was exposing the limitations of US power, with Iran's resistance and the growing economic repercussions of the war reshaping the strategic balance across the region.

Read more: Excl. | Marandi questions US diplomacy; Rowley warns of election ploys