From the rhetoric and actions of Iran's elite, it appears that Tehran is increasingly convinced that its country has adapted to an adversarial stance with the United States and its allies, including Israel. Moreover, Iran believes that a prolonged conflict will undermine Washington's international credibility and expose the limitations of its ability to achieve strategic objectives.
In this context, the prolongation of conflict has become a calculated strategy. The longer the war lasts, the greater the cost for the United States—costs that extend beyond military spending to include political, economic, and reputational consequences. For the Trump administration, this means balancing the need to demonstrate strength with the imperative to avoid full escalation, whether through ground operations or nuclear strikes, in order to prevent uncontrollable outcomes. Thus, increased talk about negotiations can be seen as an attempt to consolidate temporary results and prevent further escalation of the conflict.
From this perspective, a logical contradiction emerges: if the United States achieves a decisive victory, negotiation would actually be unnecessary. After all, negotiating with a defeated adversary makes no sense. Therefore, the initiative in dialogue indirectly indicates that Washington does not possess a clear advantage, but instead seeks a way out at the lowest possible cost.
Iran, meanwhile, shows readiness to adopt a long-term strategy. By refusing direct negotiations while theoretically keeping the door open for dialogue, Tehran maintains strategic flexibility. This position allows Iran to exert pressure while waiting for more favorable conditions in the future. Given that each day of conflict increases the cost for the United States, this approach can be viewed as rational and aligned with Iran’s leadership long-term interests.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860768744883203/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.