Despite being the weaker military party, Iran's ability to inflict persistent pain on regional shipping and U.S. allies gives it leverage. To secure a ceasefire, the U.S. may have to offer incentives like sanctions relief, allowing Iran to turn military weakness into diplomatic strength.

Iran's leadership projects regional strength, fostering national pride that makes compromise seem weak. However, this belligerence is a facade for a devastated domestic economy racked by sanctions, corruption, and war. This creates a fundamental tension: while they act tough, their long-term survival necessitates a diplomatic arrangement with the very enemies they confront.

The recent exchange of strikes between the US and Iran is not just random escalation but a form of negotiation. Both sides are using limited military action to demonstrate their leverage and resolve, attempting to shape the terms of ongoing low-level discussions without engaging in all-out war.

Leaders often assume that applying pressure will force an opponent to the negotiating table. This strategy can fail when the adversary operates under a different logic or, as with Iran's decentralized military, when there is no single authority left to negotiate with, revealing a critical cognitive bias.

The dangerous stalemate between the US and Iran continues because each side believes it has greater endurance. Tehran thinks it can hold out for months while the US economy suffers, while Washington believes Iran is on the brink of collapse. This mutual overconfidence prevents urgent, good-faith negotiations.

The U.S. mistakenly assumes Iran will react rationally to military pressure, as the West would. However, Iran's regime has a different calculus, valuing time and being more willing to let its populace suffer, making stalling tactics highly effective against American political and economic pressures.

Iran's strategy is not to win a conventional war but to play a waiting game, believing it can withstand damage until the U.S. loses its political will to continue the conflict, especially with an unpopular president facing midterms. This turns the situation into a potential "forever war" where the exit strategy is the main challenge.

The public threats of a military strike against Iran may be a high-stakes negotiating tactic, consistent with Trump's style of creating chaos before seeking a deal. The goal is likely not war, which would be politically damaging, but to force Iran into economic concessions or a new agreement on US terms.

Iran's strategy isn't a quick military victory but a war of attrition. By accepting a long timeline and inflicting small but consistent damage, it aims to erode US domestic support for the war, especially in an election year, and outlast the current administration.