Vali Nasr writes in the Financial Times that Iran is playing the long game:
In war, geography matters as much as technology. Iran commands the entire northern shore of the Gulf, looming large over energy fields on its southern shore and all that passes through its waters. Its Houthi allies are perched at the entrance to the Red Sea and along the passage to the Suez Canal; Iran is thus perfectly positioned to squeeze the global economy from both sides of the Arabian Peninsula. Those in command of Iran today are veterans of asymmetric wars in Iraq and Syria. They are now applying the same strategy to fighting the US on the battlefield of the global economy. Drones, short-range missiles and mines setting tankers and ports on fire can have the same effect IEDs had in Iraq, only with greater impact — disrupting global supply chains and sending oil prices higher.
Iran could sustain its counteroffensive more easily and for far longer. Furthermore, a ceasefire alone will not lift the shadow of risk that Iran has imposed over the Gulf, which is now experiencing its nightmare scenario. That is why Iranian leaders are saying they will not accept a ceasefire until Washington fully grasps the global economic cost of waging this war. Businesses, investors and tourists may not return to the Gulf states if they assume that war could resume again. Unless the US is prepared to invade Iran to remove the Islamic republic’s leaders and then stay there to ensure stability and security, confidence in the Gulf will only return if the US and Iran arrive at a durable ceasefire.
Iran says it will only accept a ceasefire with international guarantees for its sovereignty, which would probably mean a direct role for Russia and China. It may also demand compensation for war damages and a verifiable ceasefire in Lebanon. The US would then have to agree to some form of the nuclear deal it left on the table in Geneva in February and commit to lifting sanctions. Iran’s leaders entered this war with the goal of ensuring it will be the last one. Either it breaks them or radically changes the country’s circumstances. They are betting on surviving long enough and squeezing the global economy hard enough to realise that goal.
Iran wants a long and painful war, Kulak emphasizes:
Iran has been sanctioned, suffered major economic decline as a result, had agreements it has signed reneged upon, and been surprise attack during negotiations not just recently but during the Twelve Day War last year… not to mention Iranian allies like Hamas and Hezbollah having their leadership assassinated AT NEGOTIATIONS in nominally neutral gulf countries under the banner of peace.
Then during the most recent negotiations they were surprise attacked, had their own leadership assassinated, and had unarmed naval ships attacked “While they thought they were safe in international waters” (War Secretary, Pete Hegseth) but really while they thought they were safe, as an unarmed participant in peaceful naval exercises with India.
Now, you might have to reach back in your imagination to kindergarten or childhood, or WWE, or maybe tap into some prison experiences… But the basic game theory, that even children and wrestling fans understand, is when you’ve suffered treachery, or sucker punches, or surprise attacks when someone pretends to be trying to negotiate with you… is that, assuming you cannot kill them off (which children, wrestlers, and nation states generally can’t) you have to hit them back or inflict some other pain hard enough that you suitably disincentivize future treachery, and make them not want to mess with you again.
[…]
They’d much rather get bombed for the next 8 months to 4 years but make America, Israel, and the international community suffer enough they fear ever doing it again… Than let the precedent stand that you can sanction them, violate all norms of negotiation, airstrike them by surprise, arm foreign mercenaries to try and overthrow them, assassinate their leaders, sink their ships, bomb their girl’s schools… And then go “that’s enough, we’re cool until next time”.
Because they know that there WILL be a next time.
Well, yeah. But also, there is a larger picture. It seems that right now is the best time for them to fight USA.
1. NATO have spent all expensive hardware and enthusiastic personnel they could afford (and then some more) on the previous proxy war. Which even the most delusional cheerleaders had to accept is now as good as lost and quite unsalvageable.
2. USA was running a half-baked campaign of bans against Russian oil & gas export and when this did not really work, piracy campaign by proxy. And that’s when Middle East oil becomes mostly inaccessible. The word that comes to mind is “checkmate”.
Opening the wells in USA may save USA, but what can the vassals on other continents do about it? This looks like a recipe for either outright mass defection, or removal of puppets by coups if defections will not happen in time.
But how long is their long game? Drones and missiles are more complicated and expensive than IEDs. They’ll probably be struggling to eat soon.
The other Arab countries could send in immigrant conscripts and make this a much worse war for Iran.
Chinese and Indian shipping is at risk from poorly focused Iranian mines, and perhaps at greater risk from ‘Iranian’ mines from US or Arab countries.
Or we could lose this one.