Has the Iran war strengthened the regime's resolve? | DW News

Key Concepts

• Maximum Pressure Policy: A U.S. strategy aimed at crippling the Iranian economy through blockades and sanctions to force regime change or policy concessions.
• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint that Iran uses as a strategic asset to exert pressure on the global economy.
• Regime Survival: The primary objective of the Iranian leadership, which prioritizes staying in power over public opinion or economic stability.
• Nuclear Threshold State: A nation that possesses the technical capability to produce nuclear weapons but has not yet chosen to do so.
• Deterrence: The strategy of using military or economic threats to prevent an adversary from taking action.

1. The Effectiveness of Economic Pressure

The U.S. administration, led by President Trump, argues that the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is causing severe economic pain, effectively "choking" the Iranian regime and forcing it to the negotiating table. However, expert Cena Azodi argues that this strategy has historically failed.

• Resilience: Iran has demonstrated a high tolerance for economic pain. Because it is an authoritarian state, it is insulated from public pressure and does not prioritize the welfare of its citizens over its own survival.
• The "Waterboarding" Analogy: Azodi notes that U.S. policy has long attempted to "waterboard" the Iranian economy, but this has only harmed civilians without forcing the regime to alter its core policies.

2. Nuclear Capabilities and Signaling

Despite U.S. claims that Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure have been decimated, the Iranian regime continues to emphasize its nuclear and missile programs.

• Strategic Signaling: Recent statements from the Iranian leadership regarding their nuclear program are interpreted as a signal of defiance rather than a provocation.
• The "Red Line": President Trump’s demand for the total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program is viewed by Tehran as a non-starter. Azodi suggests that while total dismantlement is unlikely, a multi-year moratorium on uranium enrichment could be a feasible diplomatic compromise.

3. The Strait of Hormuz as a Strategic Asset

Iran has identified that it does not necessarily need a nuclear weapon to exert global influence. By threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Iran can cause global economic disruption, affecting international markets, fertilizer prices, and Asian trade. This serves as a "weapon of mass destruction" in terms of economic impact, providing Iran with leverage against the West.

4. Military Conflict and Escalation

Both the U.S. and Iran are currently locked in a cycle where each side believes the other is nearing a breaking point.

• U.S. Perspective: Washington believes it holds the "upper hand" due to the destruction of Iranian naval and air assets, leading to a refusal to offer concessions.
• Iranian Perspective: Tehran believes it has "won" by surviving the conflict and successfully targeting U.S. assets, including air refueling tankers, an AWACS plane ($700 million value), and bases like Diego Garcia.
• The "Lose-Lose" Reality: Azodi argues that both sides are losing. The conflict is unpopular in the U.S. due to rising oil and gas prices, while Iran faces extreme difficulty sustaining a long-term military engagement.

5. The Nuclear Bomb Debate

Azodi presents two conflicting arguments regarding Iran’s interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon:

1. The Deterrence Argument: Having seen the fates of leaders like Muammar Gaddafi (Libya) and Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and observing North Korea’s survival, Iran may feel that a nuclear weapon is the only way to guarantee its security against future U.S. or Israeli attacks.
2. The Economic Leverage Argument: Iran may conclude that its ability to disrupt global markets via the Strait of Hormuz is a sufficient deterrent, making the pursuit of a nuclear bomb unnecessary.

• Concern: Azodi notes that the rise of military figures within the Iranian government increases the incentive to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The current U.S.-Iran standoff is characterized by a fundamental disconnect: the U.S. believes economic pressure will force a surrender, while Iran believes its resilience and ability to disrupt global markets constitute a victory. Because both sides feel they have "won" or are in a position of strength, neither is willing to offer the concessions necessary for a diplomatic breakthrough. The conflict remains a "lose-lose" scenario, with the risk that continued military pressure may ultimately push Iran toward the very nuclear threshold the U.S. is trying to prevent.