Economics may decide outcome of Iran-US standoff
Behrouz Turani
Iran International
The next phase of the Iran–US standoff may be decided not on the battlefield, but by how much economic pressure each side can withstand.
Iran International
The next phase of the Iran–US standoff may be decided not on the battlefield, but by how much economic pressure each side can withstand.
What remains unclear is how that pressure will play out. Will rising fuel prices and market instability in the United States push President Donald Trump toward compromise, or will Iran’s mounting economic strain force Tehran to accept US demands?
"Iran's economy is a disaster. So we'll see how long they hold out," Trump told reporters on Thursday.
In both Iran and the US, political messaging already points toward eventual claims of victory. For ordinary Iranians, however, the only positive outcome is one where their livelihood improves.
Ali Asghar Zargar, a political science professor in Tehran, describes the current moment as “as dangerous as the war itself.” Speaking to the reform-leaning Fararu website, he warned that “when diplomacy collapses, the likelihood of military action increases.”
Still, he noted that despite the lack of progress, “the path to dialogue has not been completely closed.”
Zargar characterized the current state of half-active diplomacy as a safety valve slowing the slide toward open conflict. But he cautioned that “an error on either side can trigger a clash at any moment,” pointing to the volatility of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz.
The two-week ceasefire between Tehran and Washington expired last week, with no clear indication that talks will resume soon.
Iranian diplomatic activity, particularly Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent visits to Pakistan, Oman and Russia, has fueled speculation about both renewed negotiations and the possibility of further escalation.
Some Iranian analysts believe another round of US and Israeli strikes cannot be ruled out.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Thursday that Iran has suffered “very severe blows” over the past year and warned that further action may be needed “to ensure the achievement of our goals.”
Also on Thursday, Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran could use its position over the Strait of Hormuz to reshape regional dynamics and reduce US influence.
“Iran, by exercising control over the Strait of Hormuz, will ensure that it and its neighbors enjoy the precious blessing of a future free from the presence and interference of America,” he wrote on X.
Abbas Abdi, a reformist commentator who had largely avoided domestic political writing in recent months, returned this week with a stark assessment: “We are in an exceptional situation where everything is about survival.”
He argued that Iran needs a new framework that prioritizes ending the war above all else.
The economic cost of the standoff is already significant on both sides. Opposition to the war and its financial consequences has grown in the United States, while Trump has claimed Iran is “losing $500 million a day” under the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
As Tehran and Washington test each other’s resilience, distrust continues to deepen. A Fararu analysis described the situation as one of “active suspension”: relations are neither moving toward full confrontation nor showing any clear path to agreement.
For now, both sides appear to be probing how much pressure the other can endure without breaking. But the longer that calculation continues, the greater the risk that economic strain—and a single misstep—could tip the balance toward escalation rather than compromise.
Despite a history of sectarian and political friction, recent statements from Taliban officials point to an alignment with the Islamic Republic during a period of heightened regional confrontation.
Differences over border clashes, water rights from the Hirmand (Helmand) River and the treatment of Afghan refugees remain unresolved.
The clearest articulation came from Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who said the group does not favor war but supports Iran’s right to respond to attacks.
“We are not in favor of war… Iran is right; defense is Iran’s right,” Mujahid said in a February 15, 2026 interview with radio. “Whatever happens, Afghans are ready to sympathize with Iran in times of war and hardship and cooperate within their means.”
Mujahid added that any assistance would depend on Iran making a request and said that diplomacy remains preferable to escalation.
The spokesman had earlier condemned Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets on June 13, 2025, describing them as a “violation of international law and national sovereignty.”
Foreign ministry stance
Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi also conveyed support in direct contacts with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi.
In a March 2, 2026 statement, the foreign ministry said Muttaqi condemned what he described as “US and Israeli aggression against Iran” and expressed sympathy following the reported death of Iran’s supreme leader.
Muttaqi urged a diplomatic resolution, calling “violations of national sovereignty unacceptable under international norms.”
Haqqani network figures
Figures linked to the Islamist Haqqani network reinforced this position through social media activity. Mohammad Jalal, a senior member of the Taliban’s cultural committee, circulated images of damage in Israeli cities after Iranian missile strikes, framing Tehran’s response as “legitimate self-defense.”
Jalal also shared posts by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf promoting a campaign encouraging volunteers to defend Iran, aligning with broader anti-Israel rhetoric within Taliban circles.
Anas Haqqani, another senior figure, published a poem referencing the Strait of Hormuz in support of Iran.
Pro-Taliban commentators
Media figures close to the Taliban have gone further, portraying Iran as a model of national unity. Abdullah Raihan, a Kabul-based commentator, praised defiance following US threats to target Iranian infrastructure.
“Afghans should learn patriotism from Iranians,” Raihan wrote earlier in April, describing scenes of civilians gathering on bridges in response to threats of bombardment.
Raihan contrasted this with Kabul’s 2021 fall, arguing that “even critics of Iran’s government did not undermine national infrastructure.” He also condemned attacks on civilian sites and adding that foreign intervention is worse than domestic political shortcomings.
State media mirrors official line
Taliban-controlled national radio and television largely reflected official statements without advancing independent advocacy for Iran. Coverage focused on Mujahid’s interview and foreign ministry statements, framing developments through concerns about regional escalation and sovereignty.
Programming remained largely domestic in focus, though Iran-related coverage rose sharply during the most intense phases of the conflict.
Whether this limited convergence translates into tangible cooperation remains unclear, given enduring Iran-Taliban disputes and the Taliban’s preference for avoiding direct involvement in the conflict.
