Iran’s warning to the US that once again turns on the alert of an all-out war in the Middle East

On Monday, the president of Iran, Masud Pezeshkianasked to negotiate with USA the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic, according to the local press.

SEE ALSO: USS Abraham Lincoln: what is the aircraft carrier with which Trump threatens Iran and what operations has it participated in?

According to the Tasnim agency, the place and date have not yet been set but the talks will probably be held at a high level.

US demands that Iran completely give up uranium enrichmentsomething that Tehran rejects, citing its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory.

Also, this very Monday Iran began military exercises near the border with Iraqin exercises that will last two days.

Since the beginning of January Trump stepped up pressure on Iranafter the fierce repression of the protests against the cost of living and demanding the end of the theocratic regime that has governed the Asian country since the 1979 revolution.

According to the United States-based NGO Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), some 6,842 people died as a result of the repression of the demonstrations. Additionally, 42,000 were arrested during the protests.

trump has threatened military intervention in Iran and has deployed near the Persian Gulf to aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and three guided missile destroyers, accompanied by thousands of soldiers.

On Sunday, trump He stated that he hoped to “reach an agreement” with Iran.

Before the statement by the American president, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned of a “regional war” in the event of US military action.

Khamenei said that the Iranians They will not be frightened by threats or the American military presence in the region and that the people will not be intimidated.

In his warning, Khamenei stated that Iran does not want to start a war with anyonebut what would respond forcefully if attacked or harassed.

The danger of a regional war

Khamenei’s warning should be read with caution and in a more political than military sense. This is how it supports The Commerce the international analyst Francesco Tucci, who warns that, although Iran retains the capacity to generate instability in the region, its margin for a direct and symmetrical response to Washington is today limited.

Tucci remember that Iran reached this escalation after the so-called “12-day war”, marked by attacks from Israel and US bombings on infrastructure linked to the Iranian nuclear program, whose effectiveness—he points out—remains unclear. Added to this is the recent deployment of a US aircraft carrier battle group to the region, opening the possibility of new airstrikes.

The analyst emphasizes that Iranian military capacity has been seriously damaged. “Its ballistic missile system was hit significantly and the country lacks an air defense capable of facing a combined attack from the United States and Israel”he explains. In that scenario, the most realistic option for Tehran would not be a direct confrontation, but the activation of its regional alliesas Hezbollah in Lebanonthe Houthis of Yemen or Shiite militias in Iraqalthough even that resource—he warns—is subject to decisions that he does not completely control.

For Tucci, the warning of Khamenei contains a strong load of rhetoric and propaganda. Remember that in recent episodes Iran gave advance warning before responding to US bombings, avoiding casualties and further escalation. “This shows that, beyond the discourse, there is operational caution,” he states.

The analyst also links the defiant tone of the Iranian leadership with the internal fragility of the regimepressured by social protests and a crisis of legitimacy. “The ayatollahs need to project force, at least at the discursive level. But one thing is the political message and another, very different, is the real capacity to sustain an open war”he points out.

The international journalist and analyst Carlos Novoa maintains that the warning of Khamenei should be understood as a direct threat against Israel and not as the announcement of an immediate and total confrontation with the United States.

In dialogue with The CommerceNovoa emphasizes that Any Western attack against Iranian territory would provoke a response that would directly impact the Israeli front.activating a chain of retaliation in the Middle East.

According to Novoa, when Khamenei speaks of “regional escalation” he refers mainly to the Iran’s ability to hit Israel through its allies and indirect forcessuch as Hezbollah or the Houthis, actors who—he warns—are often underestimated in Western analysis. “Iran still has room to advance along this path”he states.

Will Trump take military action?

Regarding the war rhetoric of trumpTucci considers that the United States military deployment fulfills a double function: negotiating pressure and deterrencealthough it does not rule out the existence of a specific action plan.

“Trump is unpredictable. He often says one thing and does another. That ambiguity is also part of his strategy”he maintains. In his opinion, a possible lack of action after such forceful statements could erode Washington’s credibility, even among Iranian opposition sectors that expect some type of external support.

For Novoa, Trump’s strategy responds to a classic instrument of negotiating pressure. “It is the strategy that Trump has applied from the beginning: press as much as possible and then relax,” points out, and recalls as precedent the Venezuelan case, where Washington combined failed negotiations with Nicolás Maduro with a subsequent military offensive.

In the Iranian scenario, the military deployment aims, in his opinion, to force concessions at the negotiating tablerather than immediate large-scale action. That logic is reflected in Tehran’s acceptance of opening talks on its nuclear program, although with clear limits.

The future of the nuclear program

Regarding what will happen with the nuclear program, Tucci is categorical: Iran does not want to abandon it. He considers that the regime’s objective is to achieve a level of deterrence similar to that of North Korea, which forces the United States and its allies to negotiate and rule out any attempt at regime change by force. “It is an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran aspires to that same strategic shieldeither”he explains.

According to the analyst, the ongoing negotiation responds to that logic: transition from civil use to the military potential of the nuclear program to guarantee the survival of the regime. “With nuclear weapons, political change is not imposed from outside; it is negotiated. That is what Tehran seeks,” concludes.

Novoa indicates that Iran has no political or ideological margin to completely abandon its nuclear program. He maintains that doing so would imply renouncing one of the discursive pillars of the regime since the Islamic Revolution of 1979: resistance to what he considers “imperialist” pressure from the United States and its allies, particularly Israel. “There may be technical concessions, but not total surrender”he summarizes.

The analyst also emphasizes that the Iranian regime does not depend exclusively on the figure of Khameneidespite being the highest spiritual and political authority in the country. There are power structures, succession mechanisms and internal disputes between clerics, the Revolutionary Guard and the state bureaucracy that guarantee the continuity of the system. In this area, remember that Khamenei86 years old and with health problems, already has a replacement plan within the Council of Ayatollahs.

Finally, Novoa maintains that The United States also does not seem to be betting on a regime change in Iranbut to neutralize a possible nuclear threat and ensure its strategic interests in the region. “If Washington had really wanted to cause a collapse of the regime, it would have acted differently in the face of the repression of internal protests,” concludes.