There is a paradox in the US-Iranian conflict that should be condemned. How can a regime that has lost almost all of its military, suffocated its economy, and had few real allies seem to be making choices about how to handle the problem going forward? How is it that Tehran is at the center of the story when it is so far away?

One important difference could be crucial to a solution: Iran does not control the balance of power, but it does affect how other countries see it. He is weak militarily. He is under strain financially. He is either by himself or nearly so in terms of diplomacy. However, it still has a strong political ability to stop the US from turning its material dominance into a decisive strategic win.

The whole American problem is this. Washington has the power to degrade the Revolutionary Guards, strike, punish, block, and neutralise infrastructure. However, to succeed, he must reach a definitive result, such as a nuclear retreat, an extended reopening of Hormuz, a political surrender, or an internal regime change. In contrast, Iran is only required to endure, maintain its position, and avoid the appearance of defeat; it is not required to achieve victory in the conventional sense.

It is a logic of resistance more than a logic of........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)