As the war enters its fourth week, Tehran’s determination is evident not to make concessions or search for a negotiated solution, despite the painful attacks it is being exposed to. This scene reflects a clear Iranian bet on increasing economic costs globally rather than retreating militarily.
According to a report by journalist Susanna George in the Washington Post, Iran has so far refused to enter into any diplomatic path to stop the war waged by the United States and the Israeli army, and prefers to escalate its attacks in the region, in an attempt to raise the economic cost on its opponents faster than Washington can contain it militarily.
This position is based on a basic strategy: control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the global fuel supply passes. Tehran partially shut it down, causing major disruption in global energy markets and prompting US President Donald Trump to issue a 48-hour deadline for it to reopen, threatening to “destroy” Iranian power plants in the event of non-compliance.
According to an Iranian diplomat, his country seeks “to make this aggression very costly for the aggressors,” adding: “We are alone in facing the most powerful military force in history.” European diplomats and an Arab official believe that this escalation reflects the Iranian leadership’s conviction that its ability to control the Strait and withstand strikes represents an “interim victory.”
Despite this rhetoric, it is estimated that the Iranian leadership is at the same time aware of the long-term risks, with the increasing targeting of critical infrastructure inside the country and the deterioration of the ability to recover economically.
So far, the economic repercussions on the United States and Europe are still “moderate,” according to assessments, but they have begun to cause concern in Washington with the rise in energy prices, which explains the US Treasury Department’s attempts to calm the markets by easing some restrictions on Iranian oil.
At the field level, the Pentagon intensified its operations around the Strait of Hormuz, with the strengthening of air strikes and the deployment of attack helicopters, in preparation for forcefully opening the passage and securing the passage of oil tankers, which requires removing Iranian concentrations in the region.
On the other hand, the mediation efforts led by Qatar and the Sultanate of Oman to reach a ceasefire failed, after Tehran stipulated that the American and Israeli attacks stop first. It also confirmed that it would not accept an early cessation of operations, demanding “non-aggression” guarantees and financial compensation for damages, to prevent the recurrence of attacks in the future.
In a related context, the Israeli strikes that targeted prominent leadership figures, including Ali Larijani, contributed to undermining the chances of negotiation, given his previous role as an indirect channel of communication with the West.
On the ground, Pentagon figures indicate that more than 15,000 sites inside Iran were targeted, while the Iranian Ministry of Health announced the killing of more than 1,200 civilians, including more than 160 in a strike that targeted a school.
The scope of the confrontation has also expanded regionally, with Iran targeting energy facilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, in response to the strike on the South Pars field, resulting in damage estimated at billions of dollars.
Inside Iran, the regime continues to adopt a rhetoric of challenge, as Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf confirmed that the new year “will witness a strong blow to Iran’s enemies,” while the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a similar statement, despite his absence from public appearance since the beginning of the war, after he was injured in the strike that led to the death of his father.
But behind this escalation, growing internal fears appear, as expert estimates indicate that the continuation of the war may lead to an exacerbation of internal crises and reignite protests, in light of the decline in the state’s ability to address economic conditions.
In conclusion, Tehran is betting on a clear equation: increasing the cost of the war globally through the energy and straits card, in exchange for steadfastness internally despite the losses, which leaves the conflict open to a long escalatory path, in which the military fronts are intertwined with the calculations of economics and international politics.
