Why limited war with the US may suit Iran better than peace
At first glance, Iran's surprise missile strike on a US base in Jordan earlier this week appeared difficult to explain. The attack effectively ended the
At first glance, Iran's surprise missile strike on a US base in Jordan earlier this week appeared difficult to explain. The attack effectively ended the fragile pause in direct US-Iran fighting and prompted Washington to resume strikes inside Iran. It was also unusual. If Tehran's priority had been a ceasefire, the strike is difficult to explain.
But if Iranian leaders judge that a controlled confrontation could offer greater strategic leverage, the decision becomes more understandable. One possible explanation is that Tehran believes that, despite its risks, a limited war serves its interests better. Today, neither side appears ready for an all-out war. Washington has shown little appetite for a much broader regional conflict that could threaten energy infrastructure in the region, draw in more countries, push oil prices higher, and further stretch US military resources.
Iran may also try to avoid an all-out war because its weakened air defences, vulnerable industrial infrastructure and sanctions-constrained economy make rebuilding losses increasingly difficult and expensive. Iran may have concluded that this creates room for a strategy based not on military victory but on sustained pressure. A prolonged ceasefire under current conditions could actually leave Tehran in a weaker position.
The US naval blockade of Iranian ports would continue, sanctions would remain, and Iran would still be largely excluded from international energy markets.
The BriefWire