For months, Washington and Tel Aviv projected the confrontation with Iran as a campaign designed to fundamentally alter the strategic balance in West Asia. Military strikes, economic pressure, and diplomatic ultimatums were all supposed to push Tehran into irreversible retreat. Yet the increasingly urgent rhetoric now emerging from the White House suggests something else: the war may have weakened Iran, but it has not broken it.

That distinction matters. When leaders begin issuing public warnings that “time is running out,” they are often speaking not only to adversaries but also to allies, markets and domestic audiences. Such statements are meant to restore momentum when negotiations stall and battlefield gains fail to produce political submission. The current impasse between the United States and Iran appears to reflect precisely that problem. The original objective of the American-Israeli pressure campaign was never merely tactical retaliation. It was a strategic transformation. Iran was expected to accept severe limitations on its nuclear programme, reduce its regional influence and emerge from negotiations in a visibly subordinate position.

Instead, Tehran has continued........

© The Statesman