The strong reaction from U.S. President Donald Trump to reports regarding a possible attack on Iran, and his denial of the impression of disagreement with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Kane, have exposed the ongoing struggle within Washington’s policymaking circles.
On the other hand, revelations from judicial and economic circles in Tehran have emerged that, in view of war risks and U.S. sanctions, Iran is further expanding a non-transparent “trustee” system for oil sales, while the return of billions of dollars has become questionable. Both developments indicate that not merely a war of statements, but a phase of practical preparations has begun.
The ongoing tension between the United States and Iran is no longer confined to diplomatic strain or rhetorical harshness; rather, it has entered a strategic deadlock in which the military option has formally been placed on the table. President Trump’s demand that Iran reduce uranium enrichment to a “zero” level, limit its ballistic missile program according to U.S. conditions, and sever ties with like-minded groups in the region is, in fact, a demand to redefine the fundamental structure of Iranian national security. Tehran has stated unequivocally that it will not compromise on its sovereignty and defensive capability, including missile development.
Apparently, the United States is prolonging negotiations, creating a general impression that the threat of war may have been averted, yet ground realities indicate the opposite. The unusual movement of U.S. forces in the Middle East, deployment of missile defense systems, and efforts to coordinate with regional allies suggest that the military scenario is no longer mere speculation. Although certain circles within U.S. military leadership have described a major operation against Iran as complex and a cause of long-term entanglement, at the political level a narrative of “decisive superiority” is being promoted, which is a sign of dangerous overconfidence.
Meanwhile, Iran has also not treated the situation as merely a diplomatic crisis. The expansion of a “shadow network” for oil sales, the scrap sale of ships and purchase of a non-sanctioned maritime fleet, as well as measures to import essential goods through a barter system, are proof that the Iranian government is formulating an economic survival strategy for a possible prolonged confrontation. If this model is being adopted despite risks of corruption and lack of transparency within the state structure, it means that the leadership genuinely fears increasing war pressure.
All these developments cannot be separated from the broader geopolitical and economic context in which the global economy is already facing instability. The continuous rise in crude oil prices, the increasing value of gold, and uncertainty in global markets are preliminary signs that investors and states are taking the possibility of conflict seriously. If any type of military action occurs in the Persian Gulf or if transit through the Strait of Hormuz is affected, its effects will not remain confined to the region but will spread to Europe, Asia, and developing economies.
Furthermore, the alignment of U.S. demands with Israeli priorities also holds the potential to transform this tension into a broader regional conflict. Iran’s countermeasures, whether direct or through proxy networks, could push the region toward multidimensional confrontation. In such a case, the war would not remain limited to one geography; Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf states could also fall within its sphere of impact.
It appears that both sides have crossed a psychological threshold where the traditional logic of “deterrence” begins to weaken. When, on one side, political leadership declares its conditions final, and on the other side a state presents its sovereignty as a non-negotiable principle, the possibilities of conflict do not remain merely theoretical but take on a practical form. With the passage of time, diplomatic space is shrinking and the pace of military preparations is increasing, indicating that a war-like situation is drawing nearer, although a formal declaration has yet to be made. In such circumstances, it is imperative that both sides move away from emotional narratives and adopt a path of realistic negotiations. Otherwise, the situation may not remain under the control of any single country, and even a limited strike could become a prelude to a broad regional war, the effects of which would impact global politics, the economy, and the security structure for decades.
