Reyhane Hejazi - The U.S. president, by setting a 10–15 day deadline and repeating vague warnings about the situation “becoming unpleasant,” appears to be attempting to shape a new psychological climate against Tehran. This media–political alignment, rather than signaling imminent readiness for a deal, suggests that negotiations have entered a sensitive and tense phase.
Why Has the U.S. Toughened Its Tone?
An analysis of Washington’s behavior indicates that the escalation stems from its failure to shift Iran’s red lines. During recent negotiations, the American side appears to have recognized several key realities:
- Iran is not willing to negotiate beyond the nuclear file.
- A halt or permanent shutdown of enrichment is an uncrossable red line for Tehran.
- No agreement will be accepted without the full and effective lifting of sanctions.
These elements run directly counter to the type of agreement Trump is reportedly seeking — one designed less to resolve disputes than to structurally weaken Iran and increase its vulnerability in later stages. From this perspective, the recent verbal pressure and threats should be understood as part of a “compellence through pressure” strategy rather than a prelude to compromise.
Is the Military Option Realistic?
The central question now is whether escalating threats could lead to war. Historical experience and strategic calculations suggest that the U.S. is unlikely to initiate a costly war with a capable actor like Iran except under very specific conditions.
Since the Vietnam War, American public opinion has become highly sensitive to human casualties. As a result, Washington has entered direct wars in recent decades only under three conditions:
- With broad international coalitions (such as the Persian Gulf War),
- Against actors that were effectively disarmed,
- Or when confident the opponent lacked meaningful retaliatory capability.
None of these conditions apply to Iran. The U.S. is well aware that Tehran possesses both direct and indirect response capabilities — from threatening U.S. bases in the region to influencing the Strait of Hormuz and global energy security.
Washington’s Likely Scenarios
If the crisis moves beyond rhetoric, the most probable U.S. option is not full-scale war but indirect action. This could involve a limited strike or targeted operation by Israel while the U.S. plays a defensive support role. However, recent confrontations have shown that Iran’s missile capabilities exceed initial estimates, and fully containing an Iranian response may not be feasible.
In this context, a report by The Wall Street Journal about considering a “limited and controlled strike” reflects less confidence than deep uncertainty in Washington about the uncontrollable consequences of such action.
Time is increasingly working against the White House. The approach of major events — including Israeli elections, U.S. midterm elections, and the United States hosting the World Cup — is narrowing the window for costly military decisions. As time passes, the political and security costs of any conflict rise, reducing the likelihood of military action.
Iran’s Response Strategy
In response, Iran has adopted a strategy of “active deterrence.” Recent missile drills, military cooperation with eastern powers, diplomatic activity at the United Nations, and direct warnings from Iran’s leadership all convey a clear message: Iran will not initiate war, but its response would not remain limited or symbolic.
Iran’s formal letter to the UN emphasizing the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter translates this stance into the language of international law. Tehran’s explicit warning that all bases and assets of hostile forces in the region would be legitimate targets is intended to prevent miscalculation by the opposing side.
Strategic Deadlock Rather Than Imminent War
What we are witnessing today is less a sign of approaching war than a reflection of the deadlock in the maximum pressure strategy. The United States appears to be using threats to buy time and extract concessions, while Iran — relying on deterrence capabilities and domestic consensus — emphasizes preventing war while maintaining its development trajectory.
Ultimately, a geopolitical reality remains: a war with Iran would neither remain limited, nor controllable, nor free of heavy regional and global costs. This reality is the most significant deterrent against the threats being heard more loudly than ever these days.
Your Comment