Amid ongoing military-political and economic pressure from the US and Israel, Iran is demonstrating full readiness for fierce resistance and a protracted multi-front war, while simultaneously keeping the door open for a diplomatic settlement on its own terms.
Washington is seeking to simultaneously place on its agenda the policies of “crisis escalation,” “security surprise,” “deceptive diplomacy,” and “surprise action.”
Washington’s Multidimensional Pressure
Many in Iran believe there is a large-scale campaign of psychological and intelligence operations. This targets Iran, the Axis of Resistance, and Iranian public opinion.
Several main goals are being pursued: Instilling a sense of defeat, intimidating society, reducing resilience to new shocks, deepening divisions and eroding trust in the establishment, fomenting insecurity, strikes, unrest, discord, and tension in Iran.
The US also uses psychological warfare against Iran. This includes a multi-faceted campaign of historical claims, terrorism accusations, and unfounded allegations aimed at Tehran.
While Iranian civilization has remained one of the influential sources of human civilization. Marco Rubio’s recent comments in Athens reference Xerxes’ campaign from 480 BC. He mentioned the destruction of Greek cities. This seems like an effort to create hostility toward Iran’s rich history.
Washington has increased economic pressure on Iran. It aims to isolate the country and has tightened land route closures in and out of Iran. Its approach is designed to use economic pressure to compel Iran to capitulate.
Meanwhile, while Donald Trump talks about a quick end to the war with Iran, Washington keeps up its military actions against Tehran.
The United States and Israel are in an ‘unfinished war.’ So, both Washington and Tel Aviv see continuing the conflict and weakening Iran’s power as a key strategy.
Washington is boosting its military forces and readiness to restart the war soon. It plans to deploy warships and add about 9,000 to 10,000 American troops.
The Pentagon appears to have also drawn up plans to attack Iran’s drone and missile arsenal, energy facilities, and other military targets.
Currently, the sole diplomatic engagement between Iran and the United States is based on Iran’s seven-day proposal. However, the sequencing of actions—namely, which of the two countries takes the first step—the scope of issues, and how to end the dispute remain the main challenges to reaching an agreement.
Tehran’s Readiness for Peace or Multi-Front War
Donald Trump said the U.S. won’t take military action against Iran until after the congressional elections on November 3, 2026. However, in the past phases of the war, Iran faced military strikes even while diplomatic talks were happening.
Messages from Iranian officials indicate that Tehran is prepared for any scenario—war or diplomacy.
Moreover, more and more people in Iran are embracing the idea that, If you want peace, prepare for war. Tehran sees a big win for the Axis of Resistance. They view the expulsion of American forces from Iraq as a success. Also, Ansarallah is making strides. Meanwhile, the crisis is growing in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Syria.
In fact, what is happening in Yemen, Iraq, and other fronts of the Axis of Resistance constitutes a major geopolitical development in Iran’s favor. Emerging forces will change the region’s politics and security. They will also boost the resistance efforts in the area. Plans aim to protect the political structure and social order. They also include steps to counter future threats. Washington seems to have missed how much Iranians cherish their homeland and its independence. Many Iranians, regardless of their political views, think the United States wants to destroy Iran or make it submit.
Economic pressures on the Iranian people are clear. However, Iran’s history shows strong resilience. Their experience in facing external pressures and sanctions has definitely grown. Therefore, despite differences in preferences between officials and political currents, they effectively do not accept Washington’s extensive pressure.
Tehran says the Strait of Hormuz can reopen if the naval blockade on Iran is lifted. They also want Washington to return to its signature in the Islamabad Understanding. From Tehran’s perspective, it will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until the seven conditions under the Islamabad Understanding are fulfilled.
Iran emphasizes reciprocal actions and an end to unilateral demands; therefore, it does not accept a process based solely on Washington’s demands. From Tehran’s view, it is unacceptable to include the nuclear issue in the upcoming negotiations. From Iran’s perspective, the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz is indigenous and regional, and no extra-regional power has the right to threaten, maintain a hegemonic presence in, or intervene in these waters.
Moreover, over the past months, Iran has become more resilient. The strengthening of targeting, military tactics, the indigenization of the defense industry, the production of strategic weapons,, and Iran’s navy and defense capabilities have enabled it to confront a protracted war.
In the concept of defense in depth, defenders make efforts to subject the attacker’s combat power to pressure and attack before it reaches the point of effectiveness. In any conflict, Iran may consider U.S. military bases, logistics centers, airports, and support infrastructure in the region as valid targets. Deployed warships could also be included. In fact, while Washington seeks to keep more military pressure options at its disposal, Iran will seek to raise the cost of using those options.
Tehran’s response may be comprehensive. It aims to deter countries from participating in or facilitating military operations against Iran. This reaction could extend beyond the Middle East. That is, the next war may spread to a broader geography. Even if Europeans participate in the war against Iran, they will not be immune. In diplomacy, Tehran has clearly stated its terms for ending the war. This comes from many logical reasons, America’s history, and distrust of Washington.
Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Parliament, recently emphasized the persistence of Iran’s seven conditions in the seven-day plan. He stated, “These conditions have been determined by the highest authorities of the system. They cannot be changed or violated at various levels of decision-making.” Therefore, maintaining Iran’s seven conditions is both logical and decisive. Moreover, Iran’s position is that it will not enter nuclear negotiations as long as the Strait of Hormuz issue remains unresolved.
Iran and Oman have successfully concluded their consultation process about the geographical coordinates for safe inbound and outbound routes in the Strait of Hormuz.
Outlook:
Even if the United States postpones action on Iran until after its own elections, Tehran might see this as a tactic to buy time for further military preparations. If three aircraft carriers were simultaneously present in the Middle East, with more than 20,000 sailors and Marines deployed at sea and hundreds of aircraft in the region, it would be the first such situation since 2003.
Therefore, the option of a high-intensity war, the possibility of employing high-intensity means, the destruction of facilities, and even mass killing against Iran undoubtedly exist. But the scenario of aggressive, high-intensity action by the United States and Israel to strike at Iran’s leaders or its nuclear and strategic facilities is more likely. In a situation where the United States and Israel possess the necessary motivation for confrontation with Iran, Iran has also placed strategic contingencies for countering the aggressive policy on its agenda.
Although Iran is bearing a high economic cost, in the view of many Iranians, enduring economic hardships to defend Iran is necessary. Any attempt to occupy or dismember the country will be met with resistance. Iran’s potential response—combining missile capability, defense readiness, multi-front warfare, and national will—will entail high and long-term costs and consequences for any anti-Iranian military action. One likely scenario is that maintaining the status quo—naval blockade and economic pressure—costs the opposing side less than going to war. In contrast, Tehran’s strategy will likely be to compel Washington to end its policy of containing Iran. However, the opportunity for diplomacy still exists. ‘Decisions in progress’ are not final; they change, are revived, and keep the situation in flux.
In practice, there is no military solution or one based on more sanctions. A resolution based on negotiation, justice, fairness, and diplomacy is the only win-win option. Thus, the final agreement between Iran and the United States may closely resemble the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
Samyar Rostami, а political observer and senior researcher in international relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
