America’s increasing pressure and deployment of warships, yet why is Iran stuck on the path of confrontation?

America’s conditions are not simple for Iran. The biggest demand is to stop uranium enrichment. There is also pressure to limit ballistic missile programs. Talk of ending support to regional groups is also included. Tehran considers it an attack on the security infrastructure. The Iranian leadership fears that this will weaken its power. Therefore compromise seems like surrender to him. For this reason, public statements are becoming strict. The scope for leniency in talks seems to be decreasing. The ruling establishment views this issue as linked to survival. Therefore, compromise can also become a political risk.

Is the military gathering increasing fear?

American military deployment has intensified in the Gulf region. Warships and aircraft carriers are being sent. This could also be a strategy to create pressure. But it is also being considered a sign of war preparation. This makes conversation difficult. Mistrust increases in both countries. As a result, the possibility of conflict seems to be increasing. Regional countries have also become alert. The security of sea routes remains a concern. The messages are becoming more sharp due to military exercises. The atmosphere is beginning to feel more like a show of force than diplomacy.

Is the ‘axis of resistance’ Iran’s strength?

Iran has been working on an ‘axis of resistance’ for years. It is a network of collaborative groups. Its purpose is to keep conflicts away from the borders. At the same time, pressure has to be maintained on the opponents. Iran considers this as its defense strategy. Eliminating it could weaken its regional hold. This is why Tehran does not seem ready to back down. Political influence also increases through this network. Helps in creating strategic depth. The scope of risk for opponents increases. Therefore leaving it is not considered an easy decision.

Is nuclear capability a strategic weapon?

Iran describes its nuclear program as peaceful. But it is considered the basis of resistance. Uranium enrichment is a symbol of technological strength. It also hints at future military options. Experts call this “threshold capacity.” That means the direction can be changed if needed. Therefore Iran does not want to give up control over it. Nuclear infrastructure is also linked to national pride. It is promoted as a scientific achievement. The program continues despite international pressure. This makes negotiations more complicated.

Are domestic politics influencing decisions?

The situation inside Iran is also challenging. Economic pressure and protests have increased. The credibility of the government is at stake. Bowing at such times can be considered a sign of weakness. The leadership wants to keep its image strong. Showing strictness outside gives the message of stability inside. This politics can influence decisions. Dissatisfaction among the public has not completely ended. Financial difficulties increase pressure. The ruling establishment wants to maintain control. Therefore, foreign policy also seems to be linked to domestic balance.

Is war also risky for America?

The war will not be easy for America also. The outcome of the conflict may be different than anticipated. Regional instability may increase. The oil market and the global economy may be affected. The power crisis in Iran could create new complications. This may strengthen the fundamentalist forces. Therefore, Washington is also moving cautiously. The cost of a long war will be huge. Allied countries may be affected. Military success does not provide political solutions. Therefore risk exists for both parties.

Is limited war being considered a less bad option?

The options before the Iranian leadership are limited. Accepting the conditions could be considered a strategic defeat. Rejection increases the risk of conflict. But Tehran may consider limited war a less bad option. This maintains the image of resistance. At the same time, the internal message also becomes stronger. At present the public attitude indicates this direction. The idea of ​​controlled confrontation seems to be emerging. Leadership may consider this a tolerable risk. There is also pressure to save political reputation. Therefore, strictness in rhetoric continues.