As the conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel enters its third week, an analyst says Tehran’s strategy centres less on battlefield victories and more on sustaining pressure long enough to outlast its adversaries.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, said Iran’s approach reflects a calculated recognition of its military limitations when confronting the United States and Israel directly.
“From the Iranian perspective, this is a game of endurance,” Vaez said in the interview aired by Al Jazeera. “They don't need to score big wins. They don't need to defeat the United States and Israel. In fact, they cannot. They are outgunned. But they can outlast US and Israel.”
The comments come as Washington maintains that its military operations have significantly weakened Iran’s capabilities. Despite those claims, Iran has continued to launch missile and drone attacks while issuing threats against shipping routes around the Strait of Hormuz — a vital artery for global energy supplies.
According to Vaez, Tehran’s strategy seeks to leverage those vulnerabilities in the global economy. In the interview with Al Jazeera, he argued that Iran could attempt to exert pressure by destabilising energy markets and threatening economic interests in the Gulf region.
“But they can outlast US and Israel, especially by taking the global economy hostage and by putting pressure on the straight of Hormurs and the Gulf economies,” he said, adding that early developments suggest the strategy is already having some impact.
He also suggested that the longer the conflict continues, the more costly and unpredictable it may become for all sides involved.
“You can see that President Trump is sounding exceedingly desperate and is escalating,” Vaez said during the Al Jazeera discussion. “But the longer this goes on, I think it's only going to be costlier and riskier for both sides without necessarily bringing any of the parties closer to their objectives.”
Recent developments in the conflict have included reported US strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure, including facilities linked to the country’s export network. Vaez described the move as a significant escalation.
“Well, it's a very important signaling exercise because the US is saying that it is willing to go up the escalation ladder and eventually maybe even target Iranian energy infrastructure,” he told Al Jazeera.
However, he warned that such attacks could provoke retaliation against energy facilities elsewhere in the Gulf, potentially triggering major economic consequences.
“The problem is that the Iranians still have the capacity to retaliate in kind and go after energy infrastructure in the rest of the region, especially in the Gulf States,” Vaez said.
He cautioned that attacks on regional energy facilities could push global oil prices dramatically higher.
“That Adrian is going to push the price of oil above $200 a barrel. It would result in a global economic meltdown. It will have severe political consequences for President Trump in an election year,” he added.
Beyond energy infrastructure, Vaez said there has been speculation about possible further escalation by the United States, including the deployment of special forces or attempts to secure strategic assets.
Among the scenarios discussed, he said, are operations aimed at retrieving Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium or attempts to seize key islands in the Persian Gulf to reopen shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz.
He also noted speculation that Washington could attempt targeted strikes against senior Iranian leadership as a means of declaring a decisive victory before ending the conflict.
Yet Vaez argued that none of those options would guarantee a clear strategic advantage.
“But again even in all of those cases I don't think neither the US nor Iran would be able to gain the upper hand,” he said in the Al Jazeera interview.
Given the risks of prolonged confrontation and wider regional instability, he concluded that a ceasefire would ultimately serve the interests of all parties.
“So the sooner they get to a ceasefire the better for for all,” Vaez said.