Why limited war with the US may suit Iran better than peace

BBC ^ | July 30, 2026 | Amir Azimi

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other oil and gas exporting countries in the region could gradually resume normal exports while Iran remained economically isolated.

A limited conflict could change this landscape for Iran. Although Iran is paying a heavy military and economic price, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and, through the Houthis, pressure around Bab al-Mandab continue to affect global shipping, insurance costs and energy markets. Even limited uncertainty forces governments, shipowners and importers to pay attention to...

---

TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: amirazimi; bbc; begging4adeal; epicfury; mullahloversonfr; multiplenicks; trump

[bosco24]

Limited war includes destroying all of Iran’s power plants.

I don’t think that living in the dark would suit Iran better than peace but we may find out.

[ealgeone]

Tehran is hoping the dims win in November. I have no doubt the dims are helping them in some way.

[Brian Griffin]

You have Amir Azimi’s words on it.

[Brian Griffin]

31 Iranian refineries + 31 Israeli missiles = Good times for Iranian shoe repairmen

As FR defeatists often note, Iran is a big country.

[Brian Griffin]

You can’t get by easily with one’s left hand and a leaf or two if your shoes wear through.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I agree. Iran doesn’t have to win. They just have to drag this out until November.

[nathanbedford]

I believe that elements in Iran make this choice to continue the war because the ultimate question is unknowable: can the United States airpower alone suppress Iran's asymmetrical power to close the Strait of Hormuz?

Obviously, elements in Iran think that they can close the Strait at tolerable cost to their nation, caused by American airpower, long enough to so economically and politically damage Trump and the United States that we will contrive surrender while declaring victory.

Equally clear, Donald Trump himself, despite his bluster to the contrary, is not convinced that American airpower alone can win the war in time. It is conscious as hardly any other man on earth of the worldwide economic consequences of oil price spikes. He must consider the devastating damage that can be done to soft "allied" states along the Gulf with vulnerable infrastructure including refineries and desalination plants. He knows he does not now have popular support for the war. He faces midterm elections.

But most important, despite the world's most complete intelligence apparatus, no one, including the president, knows the answer to the pivotal question because we are just now entering a new age of warfare that is as surprising as the new age of warfare that erupted in 1914.

This fog of war explains Trump's flip-flopping about bombing or negotiating. He clearly does not want to test our capacity to bomb Iran into submission.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Because we are no longer fighting a war.

If we were then all the leadership would be dead, every government building leveled to the ground, and every oil-producing thing in the country destroyed.

[odawg]

I think he is counting on a regime change and doesn’t want to cripple the country to the extent necessary to defeat the mullahs.

[lonestar67]

I think we need better long term Cold War esque strategies.

I think we should declare our enemies as not sovereign.

In other words we invite internal and external rivals of our enemies to overthrow.

We will help.

In irans case the Kurds and even Iraq broadly is an option.

[nathanbedford]

If Donald Trump's policy is actually grounded in the assumption that he needs a regime change, why has he not armed dissident Iranians, unleashed the Kurds, encouraged dissident Iranian government in exile, and relentlessly bombed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into extinction?

[Lockbox]

Don’t forget China and Russia benefits, so they would welcome helping such a program.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Good thing time is on our side, right?

[Empire_of_Liberty]

How about - because he doesn’t run the government?

I am amazed he has been able to do what he has done to the Deep State’s “war plans” for the former Soviet Union.

Afghanistan was informative, yes?

[odawg]

I saw a CIA operative on TV who explained that the Iranians had studied American methods of fighting wars and therefore had decentralized the Revolutionary Guard into fifteen independent units that can work without a central authority for just the type damage that can be wrought by bombing.

Trump gave the Kurds some weapons to get to the dissident Iranians but the Kurds kept them.

The Germans successfully used air power to cripple and destroy Poland’s resistance. Air power is more effective than the media likes to let on.

For example, the Americans hit military targets last night. Why are there still military targets that have not been hit?

[aquila48]

I think Trump is loathe to annihilate Iran’s infrastructure (power plants, oil production sites, refineries, bridges, etc) because it would create a humanitarian nightmare, Millions of refugess trying to get out, thousands dying, etc.

In that case, then, you pretty much would have to go in there with troops and annihilate the fanatical regime and take it over and rebuild it, at the cost of the life of many of our soldiers and trillions of dollars.

i don’t think Trump has the stomach for that, so he’s walking a tight rope trying to beat them up enough to see if he can knock some sense into them, but that’s not easy to do with fanatics that look forward to being martyred.

[dfwgator]

It’s misleading to say we are fighting Iran, we are fighting the IGRC.

[marktwain]

The article assumes there is still a central power in charge in Iran.

When you have a fragmented power structure, where some want to cut a deal and others do not, you get these sorts of effects.

Very likely, there are several different organizations all claiming to be in charge. All acting on somewhat different motivations.

[Varsity Flight]

The Hedgehog strategy.