Khamenei’s Choice
I just came across (via Will Schryver) an interesting post. It first attempts to present the dilemma that faces Iran, in the form of implacable Anglo-Zionist hostilty. It then presents possible choices that Iran could make. I offer no particular comment, except that the question of a possible pre-emptive strike by Iran is an important consideration:
Shivan Mahendrarajah @S_Mahendrarajah
Khamenei’s Choice
Like “Sophie’s Choice,” Ayatollah Khamenei’s choice is coerced and unpalatable: war or surrender (not war or peace). Surrender will not bring peace; conflicts with US/ISR will continue & worsen Iran’s socio-economic conditions. Iran wins by (a) not losing; (b) defeating US/ISR.
Negotiations
Negotiations are futile:
(1) Trump’s demands are maximalist and unreasonable: terminate U-235 enrichment, turnover 440kg of 60% HEU, reduce ballistic missile ranges & stockpiles. If Iran accedes to the demands, it will be tantamount to surrender, leaving Iran defenseless and subject to relentless bombing by ISR à la post-Assad Syria; and like with Libya and Syria, lead to civil war and fragmentation;
(2) a “new nuclear deal” is pointless unless approved by the US Senate (Const., Art. II, § 2) and UN. Otherwise, any POTUS can renege—as Trump did with JCPOA (2018). Iran, btw, received zero benefits from JCPOA.
The best deal for Iran is one that permanently lifts sanctions and threats, which ISR/US are unwilling to offer—just yet—but will offer if compelled to negotiate for a peace that guarantees Israel’s security (btw, Iran offered security guarantees—and a lot more—22½ years ago but Bush-Cheney rejected the offer: “we don’t negotiate with evil”).
Blockade
A blockade may be imposed on Fri., 30 Jan ’26.
Firstly, blockade, as a matter of int’l law—not that int’l law matters anymore—is casus belli. Iran has the right to respond militarily (as Israel did in ’67 when the Tiran Straits were blocked).
Secondly, a blockade of Iran is unenforceable;
Thirdly, as Tehran has repeatedly said, “if we can’t sell oil, nobody will sell oil.”
Precision Strikes/Limited Strikes
US/ISR floated ideas of “limited strikes” or “precision strikes,” probably against the political and military leaderships. Aya K is 87; he’s assuredly made peace with Allah and designated his successor. Iranian generals are accustomed to suffering hefty losses in combat (see
Sepah & Artesh have succession protocols that will be implemented—as happened 13 June ’25. (NB: names of select military post-holders and subordinates, and Aya K’s successor, are intentionally concealed.)
Tehran no longer views US/ISR strikes as a “manageable threat” (e.g., Twelve-Day War). Tehran has determined that it is confronting an “existential threat.” Tehran will respond accordingly.
Existential Threat
The June war, the recent western-sponsored riots, and non-stop hostile rhetoric about “regime change” and “new leadership in Iran,” have forced Tehran to shift gears. It understands, finally, that the West does not seek accommodation and coexistence with Iran; the West seeks Iran’s destruction and partition along ethno-linguistic lines. If 47-years of western sanctions, state-sponsored violence (by MeK, Monarchists, Baluchis, Kurds, Jaysh al-Adl, etc.), and US/ISR-led wars are not settled permanently, Iran will continue to be hollowed out—like with “termites,” as aptly noted by s.o. on X. Iran will not tolerate three more years of Trump’s belligerence, irrationality, and economic warfare.
If Tehran does not “sort out” US/ISR in the immediate future, the Islamic Republic of Iran will collapse under the crushing weight of sanctions, currency devaluation, inflation, socio-economic unrest, and system’s internal contradictions. Iran needs a complete solution to its US/ISR problem.
Thoughts
How does Iran secure a “complete solution”? Not by engaging in duplicitous negotiations with Trump or by unilateral surrender. Either US/ISR initiates war or Iran initiates war. There is military logic to preemptive war by Iran (see
but Tehran is apparently reluctant to initiate—but could do so with a “false flag.” Justification is not for the West, which is irredeemably hostile towards the Islamic Republic and the Shia, but to boost Iranian national unity and placate Tehran’s allies in the Global South.
US is incapable of waging a sustained, high-intensity war 1,000s of kilometers from home: “amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare.” US lacks the wherewithal to sustain a long, hot war; but Iran has planned and prepared for this. Iran has “home field” advantage; whereas US is dependent on regional bases that could disappear overnight.
I will not delve into war scenarios, but as noted earlier, Iran’s most powerful tool is its ability to wage economic warfare, to wit, jack up oil & gas prices and crash US/UK/EU equity markets and the dollar (see
If, hypothetically, Iran destroys Azerbaijan’s oil & gas infrastructure, global markets will be roiled, gold & silver will surge, dollar fall farther (down 10% already).
“Gee, Donald,” tweets Tehran, “Azerbaijan was just our appetizer. Next on the menu is UAE, then Qatar…unless you sue for peace.”
Who will fire the first shot?
The world is figuring out that there is no making peace or coexisting with Israel. Iran must act accordingly if it wants to avoid total subjugation. Israel and the US are bullies. They can deliver a punch but cannot sustain the fight. Iran must also project itself as an ambiguous nuclear power in the coming conflict. Israel will respect no other boundary. If Iran is attacked again they must raze Israel and any collaborating power to the ground immediately. They must learn the lesson of Hizbullah - do not wait to be decapitated before delivering the decapitating blow. Israel will kill every person that they possibly can regardless of whether you wait and see, so only the loser will wait and see. After all, violence is the only language they understand, no?
DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics
11h
 BREAKING: President Trump is considering 'targeted strikes' against Iranian leaders and security forces, with the hope that this would give protesters 'confidence that they could overrun government and security buildings'
Arab and European officials are reportedly skeptical of the plan, believing that airstrikes alone won't be enough to topple the Islamic Republic, even if it encourages renewed protests. – Reuters