political commentator
and broadcast journalist – Iran
The United States has significantly reinforced its military presence in the Middle East, and it is widely believed that the arrival of military assets is intended for Iran. Meanwhile, Washington is sending mixed signals—on one hand, expressing a willingness to reconcile with Tehran, and on the other, escalating punitive measures. President Donald Trump and Tehran exchanged letters in which the U.S. urged Iran’s leadership to engage in nuclear talks. Additionally, meetings are planned in Muscat, Oman, potentially setting the stage for diplomatic engagements. However, these overtures come alongside Washington’s continued imposition of economic and political restrictions. Most recently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced fresh sanctions against Iranian entities and individuals for their alleged support of Iran’s nuclear program.
While American officials often insist that their strategy aims to change Iran’s behavior rather than overthrow its government, a closer examination suggests otherwise. The sanctioning approach appears to be an attempt to destabilize Tehran gradually—pressuring the Iranian economy, inciting frustration among the populace, and encouraging dissent without resorting to direct military intervention. In this scenario, Washington can avoid costly and unpredictable warfare while still pursuing its ultimate objective: weakening Iran’s influence and potentially triggering regime change from within. The benefits for the U.S. and its regional allies are significant, as they do not bear the military or financial burden of outright conflict. However, history has shown that Iran is remarkably resilient in the face of economic strangulation, adapting to new realities with strategic countermeasures.
Trump’s hard-line stance on Iran reached a critical juncture in 2018 when he unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral agreement that had curbed Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the withdrawal, Washington launched its “maximum pressure” campaign, designed to force Tehran into negotiations under stricter conditions. The goal was clear: squeeze Iran’s economy to the brink, deprive it of critical resources, and compel its leadership to capitulate.
Yet Tehran did not surrender to these pressures. Instead, Iran pivoted towards deeper engagement with alternative global alliances, securing membership in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It strengthened its strategic partnership with China and Russia, particularly in military cooperation. The three nations conducted joint naval exercises in a direct display of defiance against U.S. in the Persian Gulf region. Iran also found innovative ways to circumvent Washington’s attempts to cripple its economy—developing mechanisms to bypass financial restrictions, securing new oil buyers, and solidifying trade relations with non-Western economies.
A direct confrontation with Tehran may further destabilize the region, especially threatening the passage of oil from the Persian Gulf. Any escalation involving Iran could result in retaliatory operations against U.S. bases in the Middle East, and Tehran may view host nations supporting American military efforts as adversaries. Such developments would heighten tensions among regional powers and place additional strain on the already fragile geopolitical landscape. Iran has also made clear that it will not negotiate its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. However, Tehran appears open to U.S. reconciliation efforts with these groups, as seen in certain developments in Lebanon and the case of Hamas. Additionally, Iran’s missile capabilities, including their range, remain a red line that Tehran is unwilling to compromise on.
Washington’s reliance on coercive tactics without a viable diplomatic solution is unlikely to achieve its desired outcome. If past confrontations between the two nations offer any insight, it is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to counter Western strategies through economic diversification, geopolitical partnerships, and asymmetrical deterrence. Trump’s “madman” strategy—an erratic mix of threats, sanctions, and feigned diplomacy—will ultimately lead the U.S. nowhere, leaving the broader Middle East embroiled in continued tensions and uncertainty.
