Iran-Israel Conflict: Tehran Escalates, Sees No Incentive to Negotiate

As the conflict enters its fourth week, Iran appears to be operating under a different set of assumptions than the United States and Israel anticipated: rather than retreating in the face of attacks and losses, Tehran has adopted a harder line and is prepared to escalate the conflict. The escalating tensions raise concerns about a wider regional war and potential disruptions to global energy supplies. This shift isn’t due to a single factor, but a combination of strategic calculation, recent history and political signals that have largely eliminated any motivation for diplomatic negotiations.

A key element lies in how hostilities began. According to international analyst Mayte Dongo Sueiro, attacks have consistently occurred during past periods of dialogue, shaping Iran’s perception of diplomacy. “What country would say: I was negotiating and I was attacked twice, and now they tell me we need to negotiate? What assures you that you won’t be attacked again? Nothing,” she told El Comercio. In that context, she added, the conclusion in Tehran is clear: negotiating can be interpreted as weakness.

LEE TAMBIÉN: ¿Cuánto tiempo más resistirá el castrismo en Cuba?: los apagones y la presión de EE.UU. Acorralan a la dictadura

The assessment of the professor from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) aligns with what officials described to “The Washington Post” as a deliberate strategy of resistance. Iran wants to demonstrate it can inflict global economic costs more quickly than Washington can achieve military gains, according to an Iranian diplomat and two European officials stationed in the region, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Currently, the Strait of Hormuz is the primary tool for this pressure, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. Its partial closure has already shocked energy markets and now represents Tehran’s most powerful leverage.

On Saturday night, U.S. President Donald Trump gave the Islamic Republic a 48-hour deadline to reopen this vital waterway, warning of “devastating” attacks on the country’s power plants if the demand wasn’t met. In response, Iranian forces stated they would target energy and desalination plants in the region.

“Iran seeks to craft this aggression extremely costly for the aggressors,” an Iranian diplomat told The Washington Post. Another European official was more direct with the American newspaper. “As long as the regime remains in power, they can terrorize the markets. For them, that is winning,” he said.

Deterring Future Attacks

Beyond the immediate situation, Iran’s calculation extends to a deeper objective. It isn’t simply aiming to resist the U.S.-Israeli offensive, but too to deter future attacks. Iran is unwilling to concede because it wants to demonstrate its ability to inflict damage – both military and economic – and that any aggression against it will have global consequences.

The logic is to raise the cost of conflict so high that adversaries will suppose twice before attacking again. But the goal is to prevent a repeat of the current scenario, which comes less than a year after the “12-day war” with Israel. In other words, to ensure the next attack doesn’t occur in months, but in years.

In that regard, the energy factor is central. The partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or attacks on infrastructure in the region directly harm the global economy. Last week, following an Israeli attack on a gas field, Iran responded by bombing facilities in Gulf countries allied to Washington, raising regional risk.

According to Mayte Dongo Sueiro, this behavior reflects an asymmetric strategy. “You have the United States spending billions of dollars a day and Iran using low-cost drones. There’s no comparison, but that’s where the pressure lies,” she explained. But that calculation isn’t solely economic; it’s also political and military: “If I negotiate and I’m attacked, what’s the point of negotiating? So the strategy is to demonstrate that I can defend myself,” she added.

No Incentives to Negotiate

Adding to these factors is a structural element: the Iranian theocratic regime’s preparedness to withstand scenarios of prolonged wars, such as the one currently unfolding. “Iran has been preparing for this for decades. They have foreseen that if a high-ranking official is killed, there are several levels of replacement. We’ve seen it with the supreme leader, where there were up to five candidates to replace Ali Jamenei. It’s a system designed to resist,” Dongo Sueiro stated.

That resilience is combined with a dynamic frequently seen in times of war: internal unity in the face of an external enemy. “Wars of aggression tend to generate greater internal unity. The population rallies against the enemy,” the PUCP professor explained. “There may be discontent, but in the face of an external attack, priorities change,” she added.

Based on this logic, surrendering would not only be a military defeat but also a political one. The conditions for negotiation are distant. The Islamic Republic would only consider a ceasefire if the United States and Israel first halt their attacks and offer guarantees of non-aggression, even with economic payments, according to sources cited by “The Washington Post”.

But, according to Dongo, the problem runs deeper. “There are no clear incentives to negotiate on the Iranian side. They already tried it and it didn’t work,” she says. Here’s compounded by accumulated distrust after years of failed processes. “Iran has seen that negotiating hasn’t yielded results, so there’s no reason to return to that path at this time,” she adds.

The scenario, for now, points in another direction. “We are still on a path of escalation,” the international analyst warns. In that context, resisting – and demonstrating the capacity for damage – isn’t just a reaction, but the core of Iran’s strategy.