“And worse I may be yet. The worst is notSo long as we can say, ‘This is the worst.’”

The United States’ on-again, off-again war against Iran continues. While we are witnessing another lull at the time of writing, after a brief escalation following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the structural logic of the conflict remains unchanged. If anything, Ukraine’s sinking of Iran’s merchant ship in the Caspian Sea threatens to imbricate the European and Asian theatres, especially if Kyiv attacks more Iranian ships and Iran retaliates.

The war imposed on Iran by the US and its Zionist partner already involves 12 active state actors, a number that makes untangling the entanglement into a nightmare. Notwithstanding, many people in Pakistan have raised a number of questions regarding Iran’s policy and continue to fuss over why Iran can’t just cut a deal with the United States, get sanctions relief and get on with life.

This article is an attempt to explain what guides Iran’s politico-strategic approach and how that affects Tehran’s operational strategy and its tactical responses, the three distinct but overlapping levels of war.

The critics’ frustration is understandable. Pakistan is contiguous to Iran. Any internal and external shocks in that country affect it. Oil and gas and the entire ecosystem that impacts petrochemical industries and agriculture is Pakistan’s lifeline. Given Pakistan’s fragile economy, energy scarcity and price shocks have a direct and negative impact on the country.

Pakistan also has friendly ties with the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia. These states are in Iran’s crosshairs. That adds to Islamabad’s diplomatic and economic woes. It desperately wants an early end to the war, which is what informs its mediation efforts.

Problem: the war is much bigger than Pakistan’s interests.

With the resumption of hostilities in the Middle East and their escalation, many concerns have understandably been expressed in Pakistan about where the war is headed. Some have questioned Iran’s strategy and its steadfast refusal to come to a compromise with the United States on conditions dictated by the latter. What is Tehran’s endgame, they wonder. Ejaz Haider attempts to unpack the strategic logic that underpins Iran’s decisions…

With the resumption of hostilities in the Middle East and their escalation, many concerns have understandably been expressed in Pakistan about where the war is headed. Some have questioned Iran’s strategy and its steadfast refusal to come to a compromise with the United States on conditions dictated by the latter. What is Tehran’s endgame, they wonder. Ejaz Haider attempts to unpack the strategic logic that underpins Iran’s decisions…

By now, Iran has been subjected to US perfidy four times: US President Donald Trump unilaterally scuppering a multilateral deal — the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — with Iran in 2018; the 2025 attacks, even as Iran was negotiating with the US; the repeat in 2026; and the US violation of clauses 1 and 5 of the MoU, which resulted in the latest round of fighting and escalation.

Flagging this is important because the current line of questioning runs the risk of shifting the burden of war termination and making a deal from the aggressor (US) to the victim (Iran). That framing is problematic by all metrics and renders the methodology flawed a priori.

WHY IS IRAN NOT MAKING A DEAL?

A counter question could be, is Iran playing solitaire?

Expecting Tehran to make a deal without any reference to actions by the US, which imposed this war on Iran, is to either falsify all known facts or insinuate that Iran must accept the terms set by the aggressor — ie seek a deal without reference to why the US-Zionist duo started this war, what were/are their objectives, and what it means for Iran if they were to achieve those objectives. And for Iran to make such a deal for what? To avoid pain? Get rich?

In an ideal world, avoiding pain is the best course of action. There is nothing bad about getting rich, either. Iran definitely wants to avoid pain and get rich if it means exploiting its full potential as a state and society with a very high literacy rate and impressive STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) achievements.

But there’s a context here, of perpetual threat, and it requires that Iran, after having taken and absorbed much pain, must ensure that no external power can attack it in the future, whenever it so desires. Not ensuring that would mean squandering its current thin advantage, taking pain without any gains. That’s stupidity, not strategy.

The central lesson of Iran’s history with the US, and more specifically with Trump, is simple: never make concessions on the basis of future promises. The operating principle, after being stung by Trump consistently, is zero trust and verifiable implementation.

Those who say that Iran shouldn’t play hardball would do well to listen to what Oman’s foreign minister, Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi, told CBS News on February 27 about the concessions Iran had made. He stated that a nuclear deal with Iran was “within our reach”, ensuring that Iran would not accumulate nuclear material (zero stockpiling) and accept full verification.

He said that Iran had gone beyond the 2015 JCPOA and stressed that there was no alternative to diplomacy. The interview took place in Washington, DC, shortly after Albusaidi had met with US Vice President J.D. Vance to conduct high-stakes diplomatic negotiations. By the early morning hours of February 28, the US-Zionist decapitation and degradation strikes had begun.

So, yes, critics must forgive Iran if it is not entirely convinced of US-Zionist intentions and understands that talks have been a treacherous shield in preparation for war. Iran has no option but to take the hard path, a path not of its choosing but thrust on it by circumstances.

While the US and the Zionist entity overlap quite a lot on Iran, it’s important to make a distinction: US wants Iran to........

© Dawn (Magazines)