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

ByAmir Azimi

BBC Persian Service

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 Iran's demands.

In effect, Tehran may believe it still possesses leverage.

Iran also appears to be trying to reshape the diplomatic discussion. Rather than accepting unrestricted freedom of navigation, it has repeatedly signalled that shipping should operate under rules agreed with or administered by Iran. If that interpretation is correct, Tehran's objective may be that any future reopening of the Strait of Hormuz reflects Iranian influence rather than a return to the pre-war status quo. An ongoing, limited conflict would allow Iran to keep the pressure on to achieve this goal.

From Tehran's perspective, keeping the crisis alive below the threshold of total war may therefore be preferable to accepting a ceasefire that leaves sanctions, the blockade and economic isolation largely unchanged.

There may also be domestic calculations. Iran continues to face high very inflation rates, unemployment, economic hardship and public dissatisfaction. During periods of external conflict, governments often find it easier to suppress internal opposition, justify tighter security measures and rally support around national defence. That does not remove Iran's economic problems, but it may reduce the immediate political pressure created by them.

None of this means the strategy is without significant costs. Iran continues to absorb repeated military strikes, economic uncertainty, and there is no guarantee that the current balance can be sustained.

That is the main paradox facing Tehran. A controlled conflict may currently offer more leverage than an imperfect peace, but controlled conflicts have a habit of becoming uncontrolled. Iran may believe it can calibrate escalation carefully enough to keep pressure on the United States, global energy markets and regional diplomacy while avoiding all-out war.

But that calculation also carries significant risks. Beyond the possibility of a much wider war, a prolonged conflict with no clear end in sight could gradually strengthen international support for a tougher response.

There are already signs that the conflict is widening. Saudi Arabia, which had initially sought to avoid becoming directly involved, has carried out strikes against Iran-aligned Shia groups in Iraq and taken military action against the Houthis. If disruption to global trade and energy markets continues, other countries that have so far tried to remain on the sidelines could become more willing to support efforts to increase pressure on Iran.

Some governments may also conclude that bearing the costs of a more robust response is preferable to living with repeated crises affecting international shipping and energy supplies.

Whether those possibilities laid out above - including more countries getting actively involved - prove correct remains uncertain. Much may depend on whether Tehran is able to maintain calibrated actions without triggering a response that fundamentally changes the political and military calculations of the United States. The next unexpected strike could determine which path the conflict takes.