Iran-US trade fire again: Why Tehran’s hardliners think they can outlast Trump

Dubai: For weeks, Donald Trump had been putting away the bombs and reaching instead for Iran’s economic jugular.

Tehran, battered by six months of war, was meanwhile confronting a difficult question of its own: Cut a deal with Washington while it still could, or hold out in the belief that Iran could outlast Trump.

Then the missiles started flying again.

The US and Iran have traded fire for the first time in a month, abruptly interrupting a period of declining hostilities — and potentially tipping an increasingly bitter battle inside Tehran over how, or whether, this war should end.

Iran’s hardliners believe six months of survival have proved their point. The Islamic Republic has withstood the military might of the United States and Israel, they argue, so why compromise now? Keep resisting, prolong the economic pain of the war and Washington may eventually be forced to moderate its demands.

President Masoud Pezeshkian and Iran’s pragmatists look at exactly the same six months and reach the opposite conclusion: Iran has survived, but its economy and infrastructure have taken a battering. This, they argue, may be the moment to negotiate while Tehran can still claim it is doing so from a position of strength.

The latest exchange of fire could make that argument considerably harder to win.

First exchange in a month

The escalation followed a weekend of rising tension in the Strait of Hormuz. A tanker was struck by an unknown projectile near Oman on Saturday, before US forces attacked two Iranian launchers on Larak Island the following day, saying Revolutionary Guard forces were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the waterway.

Iran retaliated by firing ballistic missiles at what it said were two US air bases in Jordan, bringing Washington and Tehran into their first direct exchange of fire in a month.

Iran also claimed it targeted US personnel at an air base in the UAE and shot down an American drone over Hormuz. The UAE said it had “dealt with” a drone over its waters but dismissed Iran’s claim that Al Minhad Air Base had been targeted as “baseless”.

The exchange came just as Washington appeared to be shifting from military action towards the “economic warfare” Trump hopes will squeeze Tehran into concessions.

Two visions of victory

• Pragmatists: Make a deal now — President Masoud Pezeshkian and allies argue Iran has survived six months of war and can negotiate without appearing to surrender. But economic damage, sanctions and the US naval blockade mean its bargaining position could deteriorate.

• Hardliners: Keep resisting — They see survival itself as proof Iran’s strategy is working. Their calculation: Tehran does not have to defeat America militarily — it only has to endure long enough for rising economic and political costs to force Washington to soften its demands.

• The Trump factor — Hardliners point to Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, renewed US strikes and his threats against Iran as evidence that Washington cannot be trusted even while diplomacy is being discussed.

• The decider — Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has yet to publicly choose between the competing visions, leaving the fundamental question of how Iran ends the war unresolved.

‘The war must end’

For Pezeshkian and Iran’s pragmatists, the economic damage is precisely why the moment for diplomacy may be now.

They point to a battered economy, damaged infrastructure, tightening sanctions and a US naval blockade squeezing fuel supplies.

“The war must end at some point,” Pezeshkian said this month. “It would be better to end it today, while we are in a position of strength and dignity, and the entire world acknowledges our victory.”

The pragmatist camp, which according to CNN also includes Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, believes Iran can present an agreement not as surrender but as the conclusion of a war in which it resisted vastly superior military power and survived.

But every new American attack makes that argument harder.

Pezeshkian himself returned to the language of confrontation on Monday, saying Iran was “not seeking war” but would deliver a “decisive response to the aggressors”.

Can Iran outlast Trump?

Hardliners draw the opposite lesson from the war: Survival itself is victory.

Their thinking draws partly on Iran’s experience of the 1980-88 war with Iraq, which helped forge a political culture built around resistance and endurance.

Iran, in this view, does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It needs to remain standing until the political and economic costs become intolerable for Washington.

“They think that they can wear Trump down and they can play for time to weaken him by extending economic pain,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House, told CNN.

Iran’s closure of Hormuz has driven up energy and fertiliser costs globally, while crude prices jumped at least two per cent after the latest exchange. The war is also unpopular with sections of the US public ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Hardliners also point to Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement and US attacks during periods of diplomacy as evidence that Washington cannot be trusted.

Trump fuels distrust

Trump’s latest messaging has given them more ammunition.

The US president shared AI-generated videos purporting to show devastating attacks on Iran, including explosions at Kharg Island, the strategically vital oil export hub. No US strike on Kharg has been reported.

One post declared: “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!”

“Trump is not helping,” Vakil told CNN, arguing that his mix of conciliatory language and threats fuels paranoia inside Iran’s establishment.

Hardline lawmaker Kamran Ghazanfari has accused advocates of diplomacy of preparing Iranians for a “humiliating peace”, arguing that Washington will keep demanding concessions regardless of how far Tehran retreats.

The decision above them

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has so far avoided publicly choosing between the two camps.

That leaves Iran with two starkly different interpretations of the same six months of war.

Pezeshkian’s camp sees Iran’s survival as a reason to negotiate before its leverage disappears. Hardliners see it as proof there is no reason to negotiate at all.

After a month without the two sides trading fire, the missiles are flying again.

And each one could make Iran’s internal battle over peace harder for the pragmatists to win.