US intelligence: Iran emerges more confident after six months of war Shereshevskiy’s analysis

New US intelligence indicates that Iran now has a much better understanding of its capabilities and the limits of US power, and is prepared for military escalation.

According to US intelligence reports, Iran has grown more confident in its ability to strike various targets across the Middle East and appears determined to continue the conflict for several months to thwart US plans. This is the assessment of analysts within the US intelligence community, and some senior officials and politicians agree with them.

Last week, Iran attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz and US military bases in the Middle East with missiles and drones. At the same time, US aircraft and drones carried out strikes against various Iranian targets along the Iranian coast in an effort to prevent Tehran from closing the strait, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies passed before the war. Iran’s closure of the strait has driven up fuel prices and raised the threat of a global economic crisis.

The latest clashes remain limited in scope. However, US intelligence analysts believe that Iran’s hardline government may be considering a more significant escalation. And it has rational reasons for doing so.

After several months of war, punctuated by periods of ceasefire and renewed hostilities, Iran has gained a clearer understanding of its military capabilities. Some current and former US administration officials admitted to the publication that reaching an agreement that would bring the war to a complete end would be extremely difficult.

The United States is demanding that Iran lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil exports passed before the war. Iran has not only refused to do so but is firmly determined to retain control of the strait even if the war ends. Moreover, Tehran wants to charge passing vessels a fee, similar to the charges Egypt levies on international vessels transiting the Suez Canal.

The United States would like Iran to completely abandon uranium enrichment, even for civilian purposes, which would leave Iran’s nuclear industry entirely dependent on external supplies of nuclear materials. Washington is also demanding that Iran hand over its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent. Iran, in response, says it intends to retain its right to enrich uranium and, in exchange for handing over the enriched uranium, is demanding the lifting of all economic sanctions and, most importantly, the withdrawal of US military bases from the Middle East. This is an unacceptable demand for the United States.

The US intelligence community currently sees no signs that Iran is prepared to strike any deal with Washington. On the contrary, according to US analysts and senior officials, Tehran’s goal may be to exacerbate US President Donald Trump’s political problems ahead of the midterm elections in November. This is an important assessment that requires some explanation.

Every major flare-up of hostilities between the two countries causes petrol prices to rise. This irritates American voters. The situation has contributed to the president’s approval rating falling to 33 per cent. His Republican Party could suffer defeats not only in the lower chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, but could also lose control of the Senate.

This, according to the assessment, is precisely the outcome the Iranians are seeking. They want the Republicans to suffer a defeat large enough for the opposition Democratic Party to take control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where only one-third of the seats are up for election in November. This could allow Democrats to launch numerous investigations into Trump, effectively drowning Washington in a multitude of allegations, forcing the president to defend himself against them, blocking various aspects of his policies through legislative measures, and so on. Iran’s leadership would like to plunge official Washington into chaos in this way, possibly even triggering a constitutional crisis, because that would leave the US leadership with fewer options for confronting Iran.

At the same time, Tehran may fear a major escalation that could lead to a new wave of destruction in Iran and the deaths of members of its new leadership. In any case, however, there can be no question of a peace agreement before the US elections, as such an agreement would benefit Trump and strengthen his supporters.

The administration fully understands Tehran’s intentions and, for this reason, would like to avoid escalation. But doing so is difficult. If Iran fires on US ships and tankers, as it does from time to time, or begins mining the Strait of Hormuz, the US military will be forced to open fire. This may be precisely what Tehran is seeking.

At present, Trump is not negotiating with Tehran and has said that, in his view, he can apply economic pressure on Iran that would force Tehran to make concessions over control of the strait and, ultimately, perhaps over its nuclear programme as well.

Indeed, Iran’s economy is in a severe crisis due to US sanctions and the American blockade of Iranian ports, which has deprived the country of the ability to sell oil and purchase many essential goods. Further tightening of sanctions could create additional problems.

But US analysts point out that, in the short term, American economic sanctions are likely only to fuel further military escalation. Iranian leaders themselves have said that if the United States does not lift the economic blockade, Iran could take military action against the Americans and their allies.

According to US officials, Iran could take actions in the coming weeks similar to those it took in July. At the time, it attacked US military bases in the Middle East, killing two Americans in Jordan; struck commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz; and attacked infrastructure in Kuwait and elsewhere.

US officials also believe that Iran-linked hackers were most likely responsible for cyberattacks on more than 100 water systems across the United States in late July. Alex Orleans, a former US government cybersecurity contractor who specialises in tracking Iranian hacking groups, said that Iranian cyber operators are likely feeling more confident. “Even if such attacks fail to meaningfully unsettle the American public, they can still play into a broader effort to exhaust domestic patience with this administration’s handling of the conflict,” he added.

“Iranians are feeling pretty bullish about their position. They have taken substantial damage, but that has always been built into their system. They understand they can take damage, and they are playing a much longer game here,” said Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

According to Crow, the Iranians believe they are in a stronger position today than they were before the war, and there are several reasons for this. First, Iran’s previously fragmented leadership now appears more united, while the domestic opposition has been suppressed. Second, Iran still has stocks of missiles and drones. Third, Iran’s leadership appears to have a better understanding of how to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil was transported before the war. “They have always known the strait was a big bargaining chip, but have come to realize to a greater degree the leverage that gives them,” Crow noted.

According to US officials, Iran understands that the war and the high petrol prices caused by the closure of the strait are damaging Trump and the Republican Party politically.

“The Iranians think they have maximum leverage,” says Josh Gottheimer, a congressman from New Jersey. “So, from their perspective, why not keep sticking it to the president?”

But what are the consequences of the economic crisis? Could it lead to unrest inside Iran itself? In January this year, millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest, and according to estimates by some officials and members of the Iranian leadership, the government lost control of around 100 cities. However, pro-government militias known as the Basij then opened fire, killing thousands of protesters and restoring control.

Gottheimer, a member of the US House Intelligence Committee, said he initially supported the war. However, he noted that the Trump administration had no clear strategy and that Iran had managed to avoid the attacks.

“Because the Iranian government does not care much about the suffering of its people, it has been able to withstand both punishing economic sanctions and military bombardments,” he said.

It should also be noted that protesters in Iran apparently do not have access to large quantities of weapons and are unlikely to be able to confront the Basij under such circumstances.

Thus, Iran now has reasons to escalate the military confrontation in the weeks remaining before the US elections.