In the intellectual circles of Washington and its allies, a growing certainty is evident: a combination of military and economic pressure can bring Iran to its knees or drive it towards collapse. Analysts present detailed three-step plans to “crush Tehran” and postulate that the West holds strategic superiority. However, a deeper look at the array of global and regional developments illustrates this certainty to be a dangerous “strategic illusion”. These roadmaps, by ignoring systemic consequences, geopolitical blind spots and their own internal vulnerabilities, chart a path towards an uncontrollable and attrition quagmire rather than a route to victory.
The fundamental weakness of these analyses is the oversimplification of the conflict’s nature. For example, the strategy of simultaneously intensifying economic and military pressure ignores the fact that modern warfare is a two-way street. While one side focuses on targeting the opponent’s economy, the other side takes the war to a new and dangerous level by targeting energy infrastructure.
The cycle of mutual retaliation against refineries and gas facilities, as the recent confrontation between Iran and Israel demonstrated, rapidly transforms from a tactical achievement into an existential threat for both sides.
This situation increases the risk of disruption to electricity networks, desalination plants and supply chains, and exposes the structural vulnerability of countries like Israel which rely heavily on these infrastructures. Therefore, the idea of one-sided pressure that only leads to the weakening of the opponent practically turns into an infrastructure war of attrition with no definitive loser.
Furthermore, proponents of maximum pressure routinely miscalculate the resilience of global energy markets. They assume that the U.S. and its regional allies can seamlessly replace disrupted oil supplies to prevent price spikes. Yet, an escalated conflict involving the targeting of Iranian facilities guarantees a symmetric response against allied oil producers in the Gulf. Such an outcome would immediately trigger a severe shock to the global economy. That shock would not be an abstraction. It would show up in the price of bread, in fuel queues before dawn, in hospitals delaying shipments, and in families switching off air conditioning in unbearable heat. The first to pay would not be generals or strategists, but shopkeepers, nurses, drivers and migrant workers with no say in the confrontation.
European nations, already grappling with inflation and the economic fatigue of ongoing continental conflicts, cannot absorb another massive energy crisis. Consequently, attempting to strangle Tehran economically risks suffocating the fragile economies of the West in the process.
Beyond economic misjudgments, Western strategists fundamentally misread the architecture of regional resistance networks. They operate under the assumption that neutralizing the central command in Tehran will automatically dismantle its allied factions across the Middle East. On the contrary, these non-state actors possess significant autonomy, local support bases and independent arsenals. If central authority in Iran were to weaken, the region would not suddenly embrace peace; rather, it would likely fracture into unpredictable, decentralized zones of conflict. Additionally, Tehran actively mitigates Western pressure by cementing strategic partnerships with Beijing and Moscow. This multi-polar shield provides crucial diplomatic and financial lifelines, rendering unilateral U.S. sanctions increasingly obsolete.
Another blind spot of these strategies is ignoring their impact on the global order and the lessons which other powers glean from them.
The Strait of Hormuz blockade and the effort to control this vital chokepoint do not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. This action, particularly for Beijing, is a practical masterclass in how to use maritime chokepoints to exert pressure on the global economy.
While the U.S. tries to contain Iran by controlling Hormuz, China carefully watches and learns for a potential blockade scenario of the Taiwan Strait; a waterway which is the main artery for transferring advanced semiconductors and a massive portion of global trade. This means that the U.S. strategy to solve a regional problem could inadvertently become a model for creating a much larger global crisis and hand its main rival the very tool it struggles to contain.
Photo by Nourieh Ferdosian on Unsplash
Ultimately, these plans rest on the assumption of a unified and resolute Western alliance, whereas reality demonstrates deep divisions. The “special relationship” between the U.S. and the UK has entered an ambiguous phase in the shadow of Washington’s declining willingness to bear Europe’s defence burden and disagreements over Iran. This lack of coordination, alongside contradictory and one-sided narratives in European media which some analysts complain ignore Israel’s security realities, questions the West’s ability to execute a costly and long-term strategy. While some observers confidently denounce Tehran’s blackmail and caution against being deceived by its tactics, they forget that the world is no longer a unipolar arena. The attempt to shape a new power arrangement centred on Washington’s naval superiority, without considering mutual costs, global consequences and internal divisions, is a high-risk gamble rather than a strategy, which could lead to further instability in an order that is itself collapsing.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.
COMMENTS