Trump's Attacks Halted, Iran's War-Aware Leadership Failed to 'Survive the Political State'
The Trump administration's heightened threat of attack and its failed attempts to seize the Iranian leadership appear to have led Iran to adopt a war-aware approach to "surviving the political state," putting the brakes on US military aggression.
The Trump administration's brinkmanship tactics, which triggered the Iranian war, are being applied equally to North Korea, where the "political ideological state" is being evaluated for its strategy of flexibly negotiating through war.
At the Workers' Party Congress on the 22nd, North Korea praised Kim Jong-un for enhancing the nation's prestige, establishing a solid foundation for revolutionary movements, and "solidifying the military into an elite and powerful force."
The party re-elected Kim Jong-un as General Secretary, promoted Kim Yo-jong as Vice Director, and appointed her as an alternate member of the Politburo.
On the 23rd, the Korean Central News Agency reported, "The Party Central Committee elected members and adopted revised party rules."
Reuters reported on the 24th, "While the specifics of the changes to the Party Charter were not disclosed, it appears that some high-ranking officials have been excluded from the committee." The 9th Party Congress, typically held every five years for several days, opened on the 19th with 5,000 delegates.
The New York Times assessed that Iran has decided to risk war to ensure its survival in response to US President Trump's strategy of pressuring Iran to completely abandon nuclear enrichment and missiles, which are crucial to the regime's survival.
The NYT reported on the 23rd, "Faced with a significant brinkmanship maneuver as US warships and fighter jets converge on its coast, Iran is refusing to yield to President Trump's demands for its nuclear program and weapons, much to the dismay of US officials. The authoritarian clerics who rule Iran view such concessions as a greater threat to their survival than the risk of war." Sasan Karimi, a political scientist at the University of Tehran and former vice president for strategy in Iran's previous government, told the New York Times about Iran's wartime survival, saying, "Sometimes a political state, especially an ideological one, can weigh its place in history as heavily as, or even more heavily than, its immediate survival."
The Times reported, "Several experts say Iran has not surrendered to American terms since the last war, and if it endured another war, it would probably do so again." The Times also reported, "Dangerous discrepancies between Iran and the United States make Iran's nuclear and military negotiations increasingly unstable, and a new regional conflict seems almost inevitable, experts say."
Ali Baez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group (IG), told the Times, "Submitting to American terms is more dangerous for Iran than suffering another American attack. They don't believe surrender will ease pressure. They believe it will encourage the United States to target their core."
He added, "It's a delusion to think that every war makes Iran more flexible or promotes diplomacy." He said that the difference between a successful attack on Venezuela and Iran was that “there is no cheap, easy, clean military option for Iran,” and that “there is a real risk of American lives being lost,” adding that “this will be a significant part of President Trump’s calculations, especially during an election season.”
Danny Citronovich, an Atlantic Council expert and former head of the Iran branch of the Israeli Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Times that beyond strategic calculations like ballistic missiles, Ayatollah Khamenei insists on uranium enrichment as “a pillar of his regime itself.”
He said that if Iranian leaders make concessions on these points, "they will actually weaken the very existence of the regime itself," and that "they will likely have no choice but to accept the military bet."
Two key questions facing a potential standoff are whether a US attack will attempt to overthrow the Iranian political system and whether Tehran can retaliate sufficiently to make the conflict painful for President Trump.
Farzin Nadimi, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, believes Tehran will likely seek to absorb limited airstrikes, as it did last June, and limit retaliation against US bases in the Middle East.
"If President Trump decides to go further, the US military, perhaps with the help of Israel, will need to eliminate as much of Iran's military capabilities as possible in the first few days to deter a much more violent and widespread retaliatory attack," he said. "Both the US and Israel, not just air power but also ground forces, will need to make a broad effort to neutralize the missile threat."
Regional experts predict that Iran will seek to emulate the success of its Houthi allies in Yemen. It was seen as a failure.
The Houthis thwarted a US military operation to prevent attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea in 2025. The group repeatedly attacked US drones, international vessels, and US aircraft carriers, and after a 31-day standoff that cost Washington over $1 billion, President Trump ultimately signed a deal without risking a long-term military intervention.
Trump's chief Iran negotiator, Steve Witkoff, hinted at a "failure" in an interview with Fox News last weekend, saying the president "wonders why they haven't surrendered."
Vice President J.D. Vance, in an interview with Fox last week, called the operation a "failure," saying that despite the threat of war, the Iranian people "are still unwilling to actually acknowledge and address the president's demands," and have become reluctant to initiate war.
The Trump administration is highly unlikely to choose and risk such a "quasi-protracted war" ahead of the November midterm elections.
Analysts predict that Iran could attempt a prolonged and catastrophic standoff that could deal a blow to President Trump during the US midterm election year. He told the New York Times.
“One unknown is whether Iran could launch attacks on tankers transiting strategic shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz, or whether its Houthi allies could attack ships in the Red Sea,” said Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran analyst and editor of the regional news site Amwaj.media. “If a new conflict were to push gasoline prices up $1 or $2 a gallon, that could be very dangerous for President Trump before the midterm elections this fall.”
On the other hand, the U.S. and Israeli forces could strike first with a quick and devastating blow, as they did in June of last year.
That raid killed several senior Iranian military officials within hours and destroyed Iran’s nuclear and military facilities.
Iranian and regional officials say Tehran has learned its lesson from that war and has prepared multiple layers of leadership to replace those killed.
This is aimed at ensuring that the regime can survive the conflict even if Ayatollah Khamenei and other leaders failed to do so. do.
Regional officials interviewed in Tehran and Washington said that if President Trump decides to strike, his goal would likely be to seriously shake the Iranian leadership and force them back to the negotiating table on his terms. However, several experts told the Times that Iran has not surrendered to US terms since the last war and would likely reject them again if it endured another war.
Venezuelan airspace was relatively vulnerable before the US attack in January, but Iranian experts say it possesses the largest and most diverse missile stockpile in the Middle East.
Iran's arsenal includes drones and anti-ship weapons, and the current size of its missile stockpile remains unclear after the 12-day war with Israel last June.
Iran's intermediate-range ballistic missiles can travel more than 1,200 miles, encompassing the entire Middle East, including US military bases in western Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the Chatham House Policy Institute, said Tehran's strategy is to "rapidly escalate and export instability across multiple theaters, spreading the costs and pain across them," adding that Iranian officials are "trying to create a larger regional presence."
He likely believed the "fear factor" of war would help deter President Trump's attacks," he told the New York Times, using a "spread of fear" strategy.
Gulf states host several US military bases and are concerned that a US military strike could provoke a backlash against them.
Close US allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates announced in January that they would not allow the US to use their airspace for attacks.
Experts say this stance reflects concerns that they may ultimately be unable to protect themselves from Iranian retaliation.
An Iranian counterattack could hit major Israeli cities, and while the Israeli military used interceptors to shoot down most of the Iranian missiles during the June war, intelligence officials say the supply of interceptors has been dwindling after more than two years of fighting off attacks by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran's proxies in the Middle East are likely to threaten US forces and their allies.
Iran utilizes proxies across the Middle East, including the Houthis and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It operates an "axis of resistance."
The New York Times reported that Iran "has built and armed these groups to expand its influence and challenge regional adversaries," and that "while many of its proxies have been significantly weakened, they could retaliate against U.S. forces and their allies, creating multiple fronts and escalating the conflict beyond Iran's borders."
Middle East experts told the Times that the Houthis could again target commercial shipping traffic in the Red Sea, as they did during the late 2023 war between Hamas and Israel.
The New York Times reported on June 5 of last year that "largest commercial shipping companies continue to avoid the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, even though a recent ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and the Houthis aimed to make trade routes safer."
The ceasefire, which began on May 6, ended a U.S. operation in Yemen that included more than 1,100 airstrikes against the Houthis, and the accidental release of group chats about the strikes caused significant embarrassment for the Trump administration.
However, the Houthis remain at war with Israel and have been blocking Israeli-bound ships. “It was reported that he announced that he would attack.”
The Times continued, “While the Houthis have not attacked commercial vessels since December, shipping companies say they are concerned their vessels could be attacked, either intentionally or accidentally, and have said they are not planning to sail in the southern Red Sea region for the time being.” “Shipping executives said they fear that if they return to the Red Sea and are forced to abruptly withdraw from the area due to renewed attacks, their networks will be severely disrupted.”
Iran-linked groups in Iraq have already announced their support for Tehran in the event of a US attack, with leaders warning they could order “martyrdom operations” as part of a wider conflict.
Since the movement of US warships and fighter jets, Iranian proxies have begun publicly threatening to join their sponsors in retaliation.
The New York Times reported on January 26 that “In Lebanon, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassim delivered a televised address to hundreds of supporters at a rally in the group’s southern suburb of Beirut.”
Kataib Hezbollah, the most powerful Iran-backed Shiite militia, issued a statement on January 25 urging fighters to prepare for a potential war and saying clerical leaders could declare “martyrdom operations” if the conflict escalated. “They know it’s better to stick together than to try to force each other,” Baez of the International Crisis Group told the Times. “If the mother ship goes down, they’re all alone.”