As Washington intensifies its economic campaign, Iranian politicians and analysts are offering sharply different prescriptions for dealing with the United States: from resistance and phased negotiations to new trade routes or waiting Donald Trump out.
The debate has sharpened since the Trump administration launched what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called an “economic onslaught” on Monday, expanding the threat of secondary sanctions as Washington seeks to sever Iran’s remaining financial links abroad.
Former Commerce Minister Yahya Al-e Eshaq has focused on one vulnerability made more acute by the pressure campaign: Iran’s heavy reliance on the United Arab Emirates as a gateway for foreign trade.
Al-e Eshaq called for diversifying trade across Iran’s 15 neighboring states and developing alternative hubs in Oman, Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq.
He cited previous studies, including one by the Supreme National Security Council, suggesting sanctions could inflict at most 30 percent damage under optimal conditions. But the immediate strains are already visible, with thousands of Iranian containers stranded in regional ports.
Others see economic resilience as only one part of the answer.
Hamzeh Safavi, an academic and pragmatist politician, argued in Etemad for a combination of stronger domestic resilience and step-by-step diplomacy.
Safavi rejected both unilateral resistance and all-or-nothing negotiations, advocating phased diplomacy and regional mediation as Iran confronts maritime tensions and growing economic isolation.
That diplomatic track remains active. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi met Abbas Araghchi in Tehran on Tuesday as Muscat continued efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States and find a way toward easing the confrontation.
The visit followed a trip to Tehran by Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, on Monday, part of a broader regional effort to keep channels between Washington and Tehran open.
That approach stands in sharp contrast to hardliners such as Resalat editor Mohammad Kazem Anbarloui, who argues that concessions to Washington would signal weakness and that mounting US pressure should instead be met with greater resistance.
Some hardliners have gone further, reviving a historical analogy from the 1979 hostage crisis: wait Trump out.
They point to Tehran’s refusal to resolve the crisis while Jimmy Carter remained president, with the American hostages ultimately released on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.
For those invoking the precedent, denying Trump a diplomatic victory and holding out for a successor could itself become a strategy.
But waiting carries its own risks. Ordinary Iranians would continue to face the economic cost, while some analysts warn that Tehran’s existing sources of leverage may weaken with time.
Former diplomat Kouroush Ahmadi, writing in Shargh, questioned whether de-escalation with the United States remains possible before the confrontation hardens into a prolonged economic war.
He argued that Iranian leverage, including pressure on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, could face diminishing returns as governments and markets seek ways to adapt to the disruption.
His argument points to a dilemma at the center of the debate: waiting may deny Washington an immediate victory, but it could also leave Iran negotiating later with fewer effective tools.
The competing prescriptions reveal a problem deeper than disagreement over tactics. Tehran is debating whether to negotiate, escalate, diversify or wait, without an apparent consensus over which course can relieve economic pressure without appearing to capitulate to Washington.
For now, waiting may be the closest thing Iran has to a strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.