How is Iran expanding its pressure campaign to force the US to make concessions?
According to Gulf officials and analysts, Iran is calculating that it can last longer than Washington by turning trade routes, shipping routes and energy infrastructure in the Middle East into points of pressure that regularly increase the cost of the conflict.
Tehran pursues a controlled escalation strategy aimed at turning the conflict in its favor without triggering a full-scale war.
According to the authorities, the purpose of this strategy is to convince the US and its allies that it is more costly to keep the crisis under control than to accept Iran's demands for the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran's message to Washington is that the conflict could spread beyond the Gulf if a new status quo that gives Iran a greater role in Hormuz is not accepted.
Iran believes it can strengthen its hand in possible future negotiations by putting multiple sea crossing points and energy facilities at risk.
Michael Knights of the Washington Institute told Reuters, “From the very beginning, Iran has tried to go further than the US by spreading its climbing options over time. Thus, he had a new element that he could bring to the agenda every week: a new geography, a new type of weapon, a new type of target," he said.
Knights said, "Iran's biggest advantage is not that it can harm America or Israel. The main advantage is that it can harm the countries of the region and the global economy," he added.
Threats are expanding beyond Hürmuz
Showing that it could disrupt the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, where about a fifth of global oil consumption before the war, Tehran gave the message that no strategic sea crossing point was untouchable.
Threats to the Red Sea and Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure point to a broader effort to increase the cost of protecting global trade while testing the extent to which Washington will tolerate the cuts.
Iran's approach reflects the belief that a Gulf source says is dominant among the Revolutionary Guard commanders, that they can “get more”.
Iranian officials believe they see an opportunity because they think US President Donald Trump does not want to be deeply dragged into a new conflict in the Middle East ahead of the November midterm elections.
Speaking to Reuters, the Gulf source said, "Iranians believe that Trump will eventually back down by expanding the war and increasing pressure."
Don't climb to break the concession
According to analysts, this account is based on Tehran's negotiation strategy.
Trump announced that talks with Iran will be held on Monday on Monday after he said he had canceled an imminent attack in the hope of an agreement that would allow the Strait of Hormuz to reopen. However, Tehran has reported that it is not currently in talks with the USA.
A senior Iranian source said the Tehran administration concluded that the flexibility it had previously shown only brought more pressure than Washington. This assessment reinforced the view that a strong bargaining trump card should be created before meaningful negotiations begin.
According to the source, Tehran thinks that Trump interpreted the concessions given as weakness and only responded to the pressure.
Michael Singh, a senior expert at the Washington Institute, said he believed Tehran was still holding the initiative, with the effect of the Trump administration appearing indecisive about how far it is ready to go militarily.
"Iranians are trying to use their advantages to the fullest," Singh said. “They want to dominate the strait and exercise selective control over the waterway.”
Former US diplomat and Iran expert Alan Eyre said Tehran is pursuing a deterrence strategy aimed at forcing Washington to lift the blockade and stop military attacks.
"They don't want the US to set the pace of the events," Eyre said.
At the center of the dispute is how the Hormuz Strait will be managed in the future. According to regional sources, Oman presented a proposal to Iran to manage the waterway, supported by the Gulf countries, including voluntary user fees.
However, Tehran wants administrative authority over the Bosphorus and the right to collect service fees from ships. Washington, on the other hand, refuses any fees and argues that Hormuz should remain an international waterway, beyond the control of Iran.
Gambling based on endurance
Iran's campaign has resulted in a result that reflects the logic of the strategy it follows. As the threats expanded beyond Hormuz, regional and Western powers began to focus more and more on protecting trade routes and energy infrastructure, rather than increasing pressure on Iran.
The naval coalition, which was shaped under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, is an example of this orientation. The Gulf coalition of sources describes it as a defensive structure that focuses on escorting commercial ships, sharing intelligence and protecting sea routes, rather than directly confronting Iran.
Knights compares this initiative to Europe's Aspides mission in the Red Sea. The mission in question was established to protect commercial ship traffic rather than changing the military balance.
This means a certain degree of success for dynamic Tehran. Although Iran cannot directly meach the military power of the USA, it can create costs by forcing governments and navies to move to defensive positions.
Any new threat that emerges in Hormuz, Babülmendep, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, or elsewhere, increases the resources needed to sustain the flow of global trade.
At the core of the challenge is an endurance race. Iranian leaders seem to believe they can withstand economic pressure longer than a US-led coalition can tolerate constant cuts in global trade and energy markets.
This strategy also has a diplomatic purpose. Tehran hopes to shape the terms of future negotiations by showing that it can expand the crisis when necessary.
Ray Takeyh, a former advisor to the US State Department on Iran and serving on the Council on Foreign Relations, said, "If there are negotiations, they will determine the conditions."
On the other hand, while Washington and Tehran continue to test each other's determination, the risk of this strategy, which is designed to maximize bargaining power, turns into a conflict that neither side cannot fully control.