A. Ansari - Washington seeks to impose its demands through force, and Tehran refuses to accept that premise. The Islamic Republic has prepared itself for a real battle and shows no hesitation in defending its independence and territorial integrity. The United States, however, has yet to reach a final decision about entering a direct conflict. So far, developments have not aligned with Washington’s expectations. Iran has rejected what it considers unreasonable conditions and has not retreated from its firm positions.
American officials appear frustrated by the resilience of Iranian negotiators. They may have assumed Iran was bluffing and would soften its stance at the last moment. That did not happen. Military drills by the Revolutionary Guard, firm public statements by Iran’s leadership, and the steadfast approach of its negotiators have signaled that Tehran is not prepared to back down—and that its warnings about readiness for war are serious.
Reports now suggest that Iran has been given 12 days to make a final decision. President Trump has adopted a harsher tone, while Israeli media outlets are portraying war as imminent. These moves are widely viewed as attempts at intimidation.
This situation likely diverges from the initial calculations of White House officials, fueling their anger. They are reluctant to launch a war that could carry devastating consequences for the United States and its allies. Yet some in Washington may believe that if Iran is not contained now, it may never be weakened or confronted effectively in the future.
Still, whether war occurs or not, achieving American objectives against Iran appears far from certain. The Islamic Republic is not an ordinary state; it has spent years preparing for such a scenario and has examined multiple military contingencies for confronting the United States.
Israel plays a central role in this equation. After the recent 12-day conflict, Israeli officials appear more aware than ever of Iran’s capabilities and understand that without U.S. support, inflicting serious damage on Iran would be extremely difficult.
Netanyahu may believe that if this opportunity passes, Israel could face a stronger Iran and a more consolidated regional alliance in the future. Despite concerns about Iran’s destructive capacity, he may seek to use the political window of a Trump presidency to encourage decisive action.
For Iran and Israel, the issue is seen as existential. For the United States, it is framed as a matter of credibility and global standing. Defending Israel’s security on one side and preventing the erosion of American-led global order on the other have pushed Washington to seek clarity in its confrontation with Tehran.
Should Iran succeed—whether by enduring a war or by prompting a U.S. retreat—it could emerge as a more resilient and untouchable power alongside Russia and China. Washington may calculate that defeating Iran would send a message to the world: that even its most determined adversaries can be subdued.
Yet this path carries serious risks for the United States. It faces trillions of dollars in debt, mounting economic pressure compared to previous years, growing domestic dissatisfaction, and declining approval ratings for President Trump.
An unsuccessful war in the Persian Gulf—especially near midterm congressional elections and a major global sporting event—could have profound consequences for Western economies. A prolonged and uncontrollable conflict might resemble a strategic quagmire, offering China an opportunity to surpass the United States economically, militarily, and politically.
Regional allies of Washington, many governed by entrenched ruling families, could also face instability reminiscent of the Arab Spring. Russia and China are unlikely to remain passive; both have strategic reasons to prevent Iran’s collapse. A weakened Iran could leave Russia more encircled and threaten China’s vital energy corridors.
From this perspective, controlling Iran is seen by some in Washington as a key element in containing China and preserving American global hegemony.
For Iran, war would undoubtedly carry heavy costs. Yet many Iranians argue that the cost of resistance is far lower than the cost of surrender, particularly if national sovereignty or territorial integrity were at stake. If conflict erupts, they believe Iran must stand firm. Such endurance, in their view, could propel the country toward greater strategic stature. History suggests that major threats sometimes generate major opportunities.
At the same time, the current “no war, no peace” environment is described as more dangerous than open conflict. Some in Iran reportedly doubt the credibility of announced deadlines and assume that any attack could come without warning. Nevertheless, there is still no concrete or definitive sign that war is imminent.
Much of the rhetoric appears designed to establish deterrence through fear. War with Iran would carry consequences that all sides understand. A last-minute reversal remains possible; President Trump has demonstrated dramatic policy shifts in the past. This time, however, there may be no element of surprise. Whether war happens or not, Iran presents itself as prepared.
Your Comment