Interpretations published in recent days in the Iranian media may indicate that among decision-makers in Tehran, there are voices arguing that in light of President Trump’s apparently unacceptable demands from Iran—including the complete dismantling of its nuclear capabilities and willingness to negotiate on other issues, such as the missile program and support for its regional proxies—, a military attack may be preferable to surrendering to U.S. dictates.
An Iranian commentator recently assessed that Iran’s leader, Khamenei, believes that negotiations with Trump present greater danger than a military attack, since accepting his demands—considered by Khamenei as humiliating—could harm Iran’s revolutionary identity and the fundamental principles of the regime. In contrast, an attack on nuclear facilities is unlikely to lead to a full-scale war that would threaten his rule’s stability and may even provide Iran with an excuse to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and negotiate under better conditions in the future.
An analysis article on an Iranian news site argued that among Iranian policymakers, there are those who believe that even if Trump does not compromise on his demands, it is better to risk a military attack than to submit to his dictates. Their approach is based on the assumption that Trump does not seek a full-scale war that would lead to the regime’s collapse and that Israel is not capable of conducting a full-scale war against Iran. According to their view, a limited military attack that does not endanger the regime’s stability is preferable to yielding to US demands. Moreover, it may even provide the regime with several advantages, including: demonstrating its determination in a way that strengthens its regional standing, reinforcing internal cohesion in Iran, and intensifying hostility toward the U.S.
Although these interpretations do not necessarily represent the position of the Iranian leadership, including the Supreme Leader, they may reflect a growing perception among decision-makers in Tehran that a military attack—especially a limited attack by Israel on nuclear facilities that does not threaten the regime’s survival—may be preferable to surrendering to US dictates.
Interpretations published in recent days in the Iranian media may indicate that among decision-makers in Tehran, there are voices arguing that in light of President Trump’s apparently unacceptable demands from Iran—including the complete dismantling of its nuclear capabilities and willingness to negotiate on other issues, such as the missile program and support for its regional proxies—, a military attack may be preferable to surrendering to U.S. dictates.
An Iranian commentator recently assessed that Iran’s leader, Khamenei, believes that negotiations with Trump present greater danger than a military attack, since accepting his demands—considered by Khamenei as humiliating—could harm Iran’s revolutionary identity and the fundamental principles of the regime. In contrast, an attack on nuclear facilities is unlikely to lead to a full-scale war that would threaten his rule’s stability and may even provide Iran with an excuse to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and negotiate under better conditions in the future.
An analysis article on an Iranian news site argued that among Iranian policymakers, there are those who believe that even if Trump does not compromise on his demands, it is better to risk a military attack than to submit to his dictates. Their approach is based on the assumption that Trump does not seek a full-scale war that would lead to the regime’s collapse and that Israel is not capable of conducting a full-scale war against Iran. According to their view, a limited military attack that does not endanger the regime’s stability is preferable to yielding to US demands. Moreover, it may even provide the regime with several advantages, including: demonstrating its determination in a way that strengthens its regional standing, reinforcing internal cohesion in Iran, and intensifying hostility toward the U.S.
Although these interpretations do not necessarily represent the position of the Iranian leadership, including the Supreme Leader, they may reflect a growing perception among decision-makers in Tehran that a military attack—especially a limited attack by Israel on nuclear facilities that does not threaten the regime’s survival—may be preferable to surrendering to US dictates.