Iran’s Stark Choice: War as the Lesser Loss
Khaled Barakat
“We have a moment to act decisively to end the Iranian influence in the region. 2026 is the year to integrate Israel into the region.”
—Lindsey Graham, speaking from Tel Aviv, August 29, 2025
Iran today confronts one of its most complex historical junctures since the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s. Regional and international tensions are mounting as US, Europe, and the Israeli entity escalate pressure on Tehran within a comprehensive strategy to isolate the Islamic Republic, cripple its economy, and paralyze its regional and global capabilities, through sanctions as well as direct military threats.
US and European sanctions on Iran expand by the day. Trade routes are being tightly monitored. At the same time, efforts multiply to brand Iran as an “existential threat to regional and global security.” This signals a shift from mere economic pressure to a full campaign targeting the Republic politically and militarily.
But the assault does not stop at Tehran. It extends to its allies across the region: pressure on the resistance in Lebanon and Gaza; continued aggression and siege against liberated parts of Yemen; and attempts to encircle its partners in Iraq. Washington is pushing relentlessly to dismantle what it calls Iran’s “network of influence” and redraw the balance of power in ways that guarantee the Israeli entity’s security while deepening US control over West Asia. Supply lines stretching from Tehran to Beirut, Sanaa, and Baghdad face immense strain, while governments in Beirut and Baghdad are subjected to political and security pressure to sever logistical and financial arteries feeding Iran’s allies.
In Iraq specifically, Tehran faces one of the most complex rounds of this “undeclared” war. Washington and Tel Aviv are working openly to weaken the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a cornerstone of Iranian influence in the region. Born in the fight against ISIS, the PMF has since become a formidable military and political force, and a direct threat to US presence in Iraq and beyond.
Hence Washington is pushing to impose strict constraints on the PMF’s movements and isolate it from Iraqi sovereignty, pressuring Baghdad to curb its logistical and military capabilities and even dismantle some of its elite brigades, under the pretext of “restructuring the security forces.”
This trajectory converges with a broader US–European drive to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon and other Iran-aligned forces across multiple fronts. Having failed to dismantle the resistance militarily in Lebanon and Gaza, Washington and Tel Aviv are shifting toward political and economic tools to enforce US’s “asymmetric deterrence” against Tehran’s influence. The doctrine is clear: what cannot be achieved by force must be achieved by greater force.
In Iraq, draft laws seek to curb weapons held outside the framework of state control. In Yemen, Ansar Allah faces US pressure to curtail its missile and naval capabilities, part of a comprehensive strategy designed to strip Iran’s allies of deterrent power while steadily cutting their supply lines.
Geopolitically, Iran is more encircled than at any point in recent history. To its north, the Azerbaijan–Armenia corridor has become a battleground for Moscow, Ankara, and Washington. The US and NATO are seeking to turn Baku into a pressure platform against Tehran, particularly by deepening military and intelligence cooperation between Azerbaijan and the Israeli entity.
This opens the door to establishing intelligence bases dangerously close to Iran’s northern border, multiplying direct threats and making the confrontation even more complex in the near future. Tehran’s concerns over the Caucasus are legitimate, and have only intensified after Washington hosted a summit between Armenia and Azerbaijan that yielded a so-called “peace agreement.” At its heart was the development of the Zangezur corridor under direct US supervision and protection, effectively granting Washington near-total military and economic dominance.
Internally, Iran faces an unprecedented escalation in intelligence warfare. In recent months, its security agencies have announced the dismantling of spy networks numbering in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of operatives linked to Israeli and US intelligence. At the same time, the Iranian opposition abroad has been mobilized: arming small militant groups, pouring vast sums into media campaigns aimed to undermine the Republic’s legitimacy, and working to incite internal chaos.
Meanwhile, certain voices within Iran’s own elite, presenting themselves as “realists”, issue confused and hesitant statements that serve only to embolden Israeli aggression and weaken effort to defend and fortify the country.
All of this constitutes what can be called a “hybrid war” against Iran, waged simultaneously from outside and within the country, accompanied by a sweeping political and media campaign to reframe the “Iranian nuclear file” as a ready-made pretext for escalation and aggression. Western rhetoric has grown ever more hostile because of Iran’s refusal to capitulate.
Against this backdrop, Iran’s leadership faces stark choices. On one hand, continued restraint risks further erosion of economic, political, and security capabilities, along with the gradual loss of regional deterrence as the siege tightens. On the other hand, direct military confrontation, though costly, may ultimately prove the lesser loss. War, despite its dangers, has the potential to unify the domestic front, redraw deterrence equations, and prevent Washington and Tel Aviv from dismantling Iran’s influence piece by piece, on the road to dismantling Iran itself.
Iran’s greatest challenge is that time is not on its side. The US “maximum pressure” strategy may have failed to achieve its grand objectives in recent years, but it has delivered tactical gains for Washington and its allies; gains that could soon harden into existential threats for Tehran.
Even so, the Resistance Axis has demonstrated remarkable patience and resilience, particularly in Gaza, Beirut, and Sanaa. Meanwhile, the Israeli position has declined regionally and internationally. After October 7 and the genocidal war on Gaza, popular opinion across the region, and the world, shifted decisively toward the Resistance side and the option of full confrontation.
Today, the Israeli entity is mired in unprecedented internal disarray and strategic confusion, despite the “surplus of power” guaranteed by Washington. The carefully cultivated image of “poor little Israel,” long promoted by Western propaganda, has collapsed, exposing to global publics the racist and criminal nature of the Zionist project. On top of this comes the collapsed morale of the Israeli army and the strategic consequences of the 12-Day War against Iran, which starkly revealed the weaknesses at the core of Israel’s military apparatus.
The message Iran must convey to the world is: the price of war is steep, but the price of surrender is higher still. In a region undergoing rapid transformation, Tehran may conclude that war is not simply one option among many, but the least costly option in the face of a project designed to bleed it dry until nothing remains.
This article, republished from Al-Akhbar English, is an edited translation of an article originally published in Arabic.