Tehran Sees War as a Survival Strategy: A Deep Dive into Hooman Abedi’s Analysis.

By PingTV News Desk | February 6, 2026

As indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue in Muscat, a chilling new consensus is emerging within the Islamic Republic’s leadership. According to a groundbreaking analysis by Hooman Abedi for Iran International, the Iranian regime is no longer viewing war as an existential threat to be avoided at all costs. Instead, it is increasingly being framed as a survival strategy—a “least-damaging option” to preserve a system under unprecedented internal and external siege.

This shift in doctrine marks a historic departure from decades of Iranian strategic patience. Here is a full analysis of why Tehran may be choosing the path of confrontation over the safety of the negotiating table.

1. Diplomacy as a “Losing Field”

Tehran’s calculus has shifted because the negotiating table is no longer seen as a source of relief. Under the current U.S. administration’s “Double-Track” strategy—where talks are met with immediate, crushing sanctions—Iranian leaders view diplomacy as a cumulative retreat.

With Washington demanding interlinked concessions on nuclear limits, ballistic missiles, and domestic human rights, Tehran fears that saying “yes” to one demand only invites the next. In this view, war resets the balance of power, whereas diplomacy only manages a steady erosion of the regime’s authority.

2. War as a Domestic Tool of Control

Perhaps the most startling aspect of Abedi’s analysis is the role of war in internal politics. Following the deadliest crackdowns in the regime’s history—with reports of over 36,500 deaths in recent months—the Islamic Republic faces a total legitimacy crisis.

Wartime logic changes the rules of engagement at home:

• Dissent becomes Sabotage: In a war scenario, protesters are no longer citizens with grievances; they are “collaborators with the enemy.”

• Emergency Powers: War legitimizes the total shutdown of public space, the internet, and civil liberties that would provoke a backlash during peacetime.

• Forced Loyalty: By staining the hands of security forces (IRGC and Basij) with more blood during a “national defense” scenario, the regime ensures their survival is inextricably linked to the system’s survival.

3. The “Collapsibility” Myth

Tehran’s survival doctrine rests on a specific military assumption: without foreign ground forces, the system cannot collapse.

Iranian strategists believe they can absorb airstrikes, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations. They calculate that as long as the U.S. avoids a full-scale ground invasion—which remains politically unpopular in Washington—the clerical establishment can endure the “kinetic” pressure of a limited war while using it to consolidate power.

4. Exporting the Cost: Regional Escalation

Tehran believes it can control the ladder of escalation by “exporting” the costs of war to U.S. allies. By threatening energy markets and regional partners, Tehran hopes to make a prolonged confrontation so economically painful for the West that it eventually forces a return to narrower negotiations on Iran’s own terms.

Jubilee Hills Bypoll: Race Too Close to Call as AIMIM Tilt Boosts Congress, BRS Fights for Survival

FLASHPOINT: U.S. Troops Withdraw from Qatar Bases as Trump Warns Iran of “Imminent” Action

Some black voters in georgia begin to see trump as a viable option