Co-authored with Avideh Motmaen-Far
Published by National Post:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-logic-of-irans-brinkmanship
Iran’s decision to escalate the war last week appears counterintuitive. As Omani mediators sought to preserve a diplomatic opening through a ten-day truce and renewed negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran instead launched a direct ballistic missile attack on the U.S. air bases at Muwaffaq Salti and Al-Azragh in Jordan while expanding pressure across other fronts. The move sharply increased the risk of a broader regional conflict. Reports soon emerged that Washington was preparing strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure before Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman reportedly intervened to preserve the diplomatic track. Why did Tehran choose escalation at the very moment when an off-ramp appeared within reach?
The answer lies in the Islamic Republic’s internal balance of power.
Three distinct centres of power currently compete over how Iran should prosecute the war and negotiate its eventual settlement. They differ on methods and acceptable levels of risk. Yet they remain broadly aligned on the strategic objectives they seek to achieve.
The first, and currently the most influential, is the faction led by Ahmad Vahidi. This camp represents the dominant force in shaping Iran’s wartime decisions. It views military pressure as the prerequisite for any meaningful outcome and insists that, if negotiations occur at all, they must proceed from a position of strength. For Vahidi, the Strait of Hormuz is Tehran’s principal source of strategic leverage. Maintaining coercive control over the Strait strengthens its hand in future negotiations over its nuclear program. Losing that leverage would weaken Iran’s bargaining position long after the current war ends.
The second faction is represented by Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. This camp’s priority is to contain the economic deterioration that war and sanctions are inflicting on the regime. They are equally concerned about the domestic front. A population that has repeatedly demonstrated its desire for political change is a strategic challenge no less consequential than the military confrontation abroad. It is prepared to negotiate limited compromises over the administration of the Strait of Hormuz.
The third faction, centred on the Paydari Front and figures such as Saeed Jalili, rejects negotiations with Washington altogether. Although smaller than the other two camps, it continues to exert ideological pressure against compromise and enjoys influence through key state institutions. One example is the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), headed by Peyman Jebeli, who is widely regarded as being close to this current.
Escalation Before Diplomacy
Its strategy is to move beyond a defensive posture and seize the initiative. Rather than confining the conflict to Iranian territory, it seeks to widen the theatre across the region and beyond, raising the costs for Iran’s adversaries and restoring deterrence on more favourable terms. The other factions have adjusted to the strategic environment created by military escalation. That pattern became evident immediately after Iran’s attacks on American bases in Jordan; foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi launched an intensive diplomatic effort, speaking with his counterparts in Cyprus and Bulgaria before contacting British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. Those conversations reportedly sought to discourage additional support for American military operations and warn against further expansion of the conflict. In this instance, military escalation and diplomacy served as sequential instruments of the same strategy.
Borrowing the Madman Theory
For years, officials and analysts in Tehran have discussed Donald Trump’s strategic posture through the language of the “madman theory“—the deliberate cultivation of unpredictability to gain bargaining leverage. Recent Iranian behaviour indicates that the regime is attempting to appropriate the same logic. Rather than reacting to American unpredictability, Tehran is attempting to manufacture uncertainty of its own. Immediately after President Donald Trump reportedly signalled his intention to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure, Noor News, a media outlet closely associated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, published a list of energy facilities across the Gulf that the IRGC could target in retaliation. The message was unmistakable: any attack on Iran’s energy sector would be met with a region-wide response.
The Logic of Brinkmanship
In effect, the IRGC’s conduct throughout the latest round of hostilities suggests a deliberate willingness to escalate in order to demonstrate resolve and shape the adversary’s calculations. This is classic brinkmanship. Thomas Schelling gave brinkmanship its classic strategic formulation: the deliberate manipulation of escalating risk to convince an opponent that continued confrontation may lead to consequences neither side can fully control. Iran’s recent conduct closely fits that model.
That strategy places Washington in an increasingly difficult position. Every attempt to increase military pressure carries the risk of provoking another round of Iranian escalation rather than compelling restraint. The result is a strategic dilemma in which measured responses risk appearing indecisive while stronger responses threaten a wider war. President Donald Trump’s reported decision to suspend planned strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure, even if only temporarily, illustrates the precarious balance.
The Escalation Trap
This locks the conflict into a dangerous strategic dynamic. Temporary pauses in escalation, even when tactically prudent, should not be mistaken for a durable solution. They merely postpone the next crisis while allowing each side to prepare for it. The core issues are not resolved yet. The next round of hostilities is likely to begin from a higher level of intensity than the last. Each cycle of brinkmanship raises the threshold of deterrence, requiring ever greater demonstrations of resolve to preserve credibility. This means that every future confrontation will begin where the previous one ended.