Iran's Calculated Risk: Why Tehran Bets on Prolonged Conflict for a Better Deal

Washington D.C. - Ekhbary News Agency

Iran's Calculated Risk: Why Tehran Bets on Prolonged Conflict for a Better Deal

In the intricate geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East, Iran appears to be operating under a strategic premise that defies conventional wisdom: that a protracted period of tension, or even a drawn-out conflict, could ultimately serve its interests better than an immediate capitulation to external pressures. This calculated risk, particularly evident in Tehran's response to the United States' "maximum pressure" campaign, suggests a profound belief within the Iranian leadership that enduring hardship now might pave the way for a more advantageous diplomatic resolution in the future, especially compared to the terms offered by the previous U.S. administration.

The roots of this strategy lie in the turbulent history of U.S.-Iran relations, particularly since the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. When the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under the Trump administration and reimposed crippling sanctions, Iran found itself at a crossroads. Rather than immediately seeking a new, more restrictive deal under duress, Tehran opted for a strategy of "strategic patience" mixed with calibrated escalation. This involved gradually scaling back its commitments to the JCPOA while carefully avoiding actions that would provoke an all-out war, all while calling for European powers to uphold their end of the original bargain.

Iranian policymakers, drawing from decades of experience navigating international isolation and sanctions, seem convinced that the "maximum pressure" campaign is not sustainable indefinitely. They anticipate that either the economic strain will eventually force the U.S. to soften its stance, or, more likely, a change in U.S. presidential administrations could bring about a more amenable negotiating partner. A drawn-out conflict, in this context, does not necessarily imply large-scale conventional warfare. Instead, it encompasses a spectrum of activities: proxy engagements in regional hotspots like Yemen, Iraq, and Syria; limited naval confrontations in the Persian Gulf; cyber operations; and the continued advancement of its ballistic missile program. These actions serve multiple purposes: demonstrating Iran's deterrent capabilities, asserting its regional influence, and signaling its unwillingness to be easily bullied into submission.

From Tehran's perspective, the previous U.S. offer – which effectively demands a more comprehensive deal covering its missile program and regional activities in exchange for sanctions relief – is seen as an attempt to dismantle its strategic depth without offering genuine security guarantees. By resisting immediate concessions and enduring the economic pain, Iran aims to increase its leverage. The leadership might believe that a future U.S. administration, weary of perpetual instability in the Middle East and facing its own domestic and international pressures, would be more inclined to offer a deal that respects Iran's red lines and provides more substantial, verifiable benefits.

This strategy is not without significant risks. The potential for miscalculation leading to direct military confrontation remains high, as evidenced by past incidents such as the attack on Saudi oil facilities or the downing of a U.S. drone. The economic hardship on the Iranian populace is severe, fueling internal discontent and potentially threatening the regime's stability. Furthermore, a prolonged state of tension could further entrench hardline elements within Iran, making future diplomatic breakthroughs even more challenging. However, the alternative – accepting a deal perceived as humiliating and undermining Iran's sovereignty – is evidently seen as an even greater risk to the regime's long-term survival and ideological standing.

International actors such as the European Union, China, and Russia have largely opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and have sought to preserve the deal, albeit with limited success in mitigating the impact of U.S. sanctions. Their continued diplomatic efforts and calls for de-escalation provide a degree of international legitimacy to Iran's position that it is the U.S. that violated an international agreement. This international dimension further bolsters Tehran's resolve to play the long game, believing that global dynamics may eventually shift in its favor.

Ultimately, Iran's gamble on a drawn-out conflict is a high-stakes strategy rooted in historical grievances, a deep sense of national pride, and a calculated assessment of geopolitical realities. It reflects a belief that time, and the inherent volatility of international politics, may yet deliver a more equitable and enduring resolution than any currently on the table. The coming years will reveal whether this patient, often confrontational, approach yields the "better deal" Tehran so desperately seeks, or if it leads to an unintended and potentially catastrophic escalation.

Ekhbary News Agency