Executive Summary

The reporting period of July 4 to July 10, 2026, witnessed the rapid, violent, and systemic collapse of the June 14 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) ceasefire framework, returning the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran to a state of active, high-intensity kinetic hostilities. This deterioration was fundamentally precipitated by Tehran’s aggressive attempts to operationalize the newly formed Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) as an institutionalized toll-collection and sovereign-control mechanism over the Strait of Hormuz, an act that brazenly crossed Washington’s established redlines regarding the freedom of international navigation. The resulting escalation highlights a highly volatile “dual-track” paradigm where both Washington and Tehran are deliberately deploying military force to shape the diplomatic baseline ahead of anticipated technical negotiations.

Diplomatically, the Bürgenstock Architecture in Switzerland has been functionally paralyzed by the renewed violence, although diplomatic channels remain tenuously open. This was evidenced by US President Donald Trump’s July 10 declaration that the formal ceasefire is unequivocally “OVER,” paradoxically paired with a simultaneous agreement to continue backchannel talks facilitated by Qatari mediators. In the Levantine theater, the proposed Iran-Lebanon-US deconfliction cell remains entirely inactive, systematically stalled by a Lebanese government that is highly resistant to formalizing any degree of Iranian influence within its domestic security architecture.

Economically, the US Treasury rapidly and punitively revoked General License X (GL X)—which had temporarily authorized the sale of Iranian hydrocarbons—replacing it with the highly restrictive General License X1 (GL X1). This revocation reinstates severe macroeconomic pressure on Tehran, trapping payments in blocked US accounts and compounding an International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected economic contraction of 6.1%. Kinetically, Iran’s unprovoked strikes on three commercial vessels, including Qatari and Saudi assets, triggered a massive US retaliatory campaign targeting over 80 Iranian air defense and naval nodes, alongside a highly strategic geo-economic strike on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun railway bridge in northern Iran. Iran countered this with an unprecedented wave of horizontal escalation, launching ballistic missiles and drones at US military installations in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. This tit-for-tat violence underscores a highly dangerous phase of “negotiation under fire,” where both adversaries seek to leverage military dominance and proxy warfare to extract maximalist concessions in future diplomatic engagements.

Detailed Operational and Diplomatic Developments

Bilateral Interactions

The diplomatic framework established by the 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is currently undergoing a severe, potentially terminal, stress test, exposing the inherent and deep-seated contradictions between United States and Iranian strategic objectives.¹ The MoU, officially signed on June 17, 2026, at the Palace of Versailles by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, was explicitly designed as a 60-day interim de-escalation vehicle.¹ Its primary utility was to freeze the intense direct and proxy military hostilities that characterized Operation Epic Fury—the joint US-Israeli military campaign initiated on February 28, 2026, which resulted in the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—while broader, permanent agreements could be brokered.¹ However, the agreement’s “constructive ambiguity,” which initially allowed both sides to claim political victory and halt the fighting, has proven fatal in the short term.²

The primary friction point revolves around the strategic control of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran interpreted the MoU’s mandate to reopen the strait as implicit international permission to administer the waterway via the PGSA, demanding tolls and dictating transit routes under the guise of maritime security, mine clearance, and environmental protection.⁴ The United States categorically rejected this interpretation, asserting that the waterway must remain an unrestricted international transit corridor.¹⁰ US officials demanded that Tehran issue a public, unequivocal statement guaranteeing toll-free, unhindered access to all shipping lanes, threatening severe consequences for non-compliance.¹² While US diplomatic sources reported on July 10 that Iran had privately acknowledged its recent attacks on shipping as a “mistake” stemming from an “errant part of their system,” Tehran has publicly doubled down on its sovereign claims, refusing to concede operational control over the chokepoint.¹⁰ Consequently, President Trump announced via social media on July 10 that the formal ceasefire is terminated, yet authorized the continuation of talks in Oman and Switzerland, illustrating a deliberate strategy of coercive diplomacy where kinetic pressure runs parallel to diplomatic engagement.⁵

The broader Bürgenstock Architecture, which facilitates these negotiations, remains highly fragile. Following unprecedented high-level political talks on June 23-24 between US Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf at the Swiss resort, negotiations were suspended to allow both delegations to consult their respective leaderships.² The resumption of these talks is highly dependent on the mediation efforts of Pakistan and Qatar.⁶ Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif continues to engage both Tehran and Doha to keep the process on track, while Qatari negotiators traveled directly to Mashhad, Iran, on July 10—meeting Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during Ali Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies—in a desperate bid to stabilize their mediation role and salvage the dialogue process.¹⁵

The internal political dynamics within Iran further complicate these negotiations. The new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has remained largely out of public view since his father’s death, faces intense pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and conservative hardliners to project unyielding strength and avenge the casualties of Operation Epic Fury.⁵ During the massive transnational funeral processions spanning Tehran, Qom, the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala, and finally Mashhad—which drew an estimated 20 to 43 million mourners—anti-US sentiment reached a fever pitch.⁷² Hardline figures explicitly demanded a harder ideological, nuclear, and security line, framing the US diplomatic engagement as a deceptive tactic used to map Iranian leadership residences for future assassinations.²⁰

In the Levantine theater, the implementation of the June 26 Trilateral Framework Agreement between Israel, Lebanon, and the United States remains completely deadlocked over internal Lebanese political calculations and deep-seated institutional fears.²⁶ A central component of this framework is the establishment of an Iran-Lebanon-US “deconfliction cell,” a mechanism originally proposed by Qatari mediators to monitor, verify, and report on violations of the cessation of military operations across the Israel-Hezbollah front.²⁶ However, the Lebanese government has actively and systematically stalled the operationalization of this cell by refusing to formally appoint official representatives.²⁶ The strategic rationale in Beirut is clear and paramount: the central government views Iranian influence as an existential destabilizer and seeks to avoid any mechanism that legally formalizes Tehran’s role in Lebanese domestic security affairs.²⁶ Allowing the deconfliction cell to function would grant the IRGC direct, internationally recognized leverage to shape the narrative regarding ceasefire violations via its proxy, Hezbollah.²⁶ While Lebanese President Joseph Aoun stated on July 6 that the government is not fundamentally opposed to appointing a representative—and diplomatic sources floated former Ambassador to the US Simon Karam for the role on July 7—no official action has been taken to convene the cell.²⁶

Concurrently, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have flatly refused to establish designated “pilot zones” north of the Litani River or to initiate the disarmament of Hezbollah until the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) execute a complete and verifiable withdrawal from Lebanese territory, specifically from positions in Zawtar el Gharbiyeh, Ghandouriyeh, and Froun in the Nabatieh Governorate.²⁶ The LAF leadership calculates that initiating an internal confrontation with Hezbollah prior to an Israeli withdrawal would likely fracture the military and ignite a catastrophic civil war, while simultaneously providing Israeli forces with a strategic pretext to maintain their occupation of southern Lebanon indefinitely.²⁶ Instead, Lebanon continues to favor the US-led Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MGC4L), commanded by US Marine Lieutenant General Joseph Clearfield, as the exclusive mechanism for deconfliction, explicitly to bypass Iranian oversight and maintain bilateral security ties with Washington.²⁶ Despite these profound gridlocks and the failure to meet its own preconditions regarding an IDF withdrawal, the Lebanese government confirmed on July 8 that it will participate in the upcoming tripartite Rome negotiations scheduled for July 15-16, indicating a continued commitment to the diplomatic process despite the deteriorating security environment.²²

Economic Statecraft

The focal point of United States economic statecraft during this reporting period was the abrupt, severe, and highly disruptive termination of the sanctions relief that had been conditionally granted under the Islamabad MoU. On July 7, 2026, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License X1 (GL X1), completely and immediately revoking General License X (GL X).³⁰ Issued just weeks prior on June 21, GL X had represented a historic and dramatic reversal of US policy, broadly authorizing the production, delivery, and sale of Iranian crude oil, petroleum, and petrochemical products.³¹ This initial authorization was designed to stabilize global energy markets, ease inflation, and serve as a powerful economic incentive for Iranian compliance with the military ceasefire.¹

However, following the IRGC’s attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the transition to GL X1 operates not merely as a return to the status quo ante, but as a punitive recalibration designed to rapidly sever Iran’s immediate access to hard currency and inflict maximum liquidity pressure.³² GL X1 provides a highly compressed, 10-day wind-down period expiring precisely at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 17, 2026.³¹ Crucially, the directive strictly prohibits any new transactions, including new purchases or loadings of Iranian-origin hydrocarbons; it solely authorizes conduct that is “ordinarily incident and necessary” to wind down previously authorized activities.³¹

Furthermore, the payment settlement architecture has been aggressively weaponized by the US Treasury. Whereas GL X permitted payments owed to Iran, the Government of Iran, or blocked persons to be settled directly in US dollars, GL X1 fundamentally alters this paradigm.³² Under the new directive, any payments made during the wind-down period must be deposited directly into blocked, interest-bearing accounts located strictly within the jurisdiction of the United States.³¹ This mechanism ensures that while international buyers can legally fulfill existing contractual obligations and take delivery of oil already in transit, the Iranian regime is entirely deprived of the resulting liquidity, trapping the funds under US jurisdiction where they can only be released pursuant to a specific, and highly unlikely, OFAC license.³⁷

Simultaneous to the GL X revocation, the US Treasury expanded its targeting of Iranian financial networks to choke off alternative revenue streams. OFAC announced new designations pursuant to Executive Orders 13902 and 13876, targeting key Iranian exchange houses and individuals that move billions of dollars annually on behalf of sanctioned Iranian banks.³⁹ A primary target was Dubai-based Iranian national Ali Ansari, a key financier for the Supreme Leader’s office.³⁹ Ansari, the former owner and director of the US-sanctioned and now-defunct Ayandeh Bank, was designated for institutionalizing embezzlement within the Iranian regime, overextending loans backed by the Central Bank of Iran to his own shell companies, and amassing a global network of investment properties on behalf of Mojtaba Khamenei and the IRGC.³⁹ Specifically, Ansari has been linked to the acquisition of luxury apartments in London overlooking the Israeli embassy on behalf of the Supreme Leader’s son.⁷⁵ This indicates a comprehensive, multi-layered US strategy to systematically dismantle Iran’s shadow banking apparatus and personal enrichment networks while formal energy revenues are choked off.

This rapid whiplash in sanctions policy, combined with the physical destruction of infrastructure, has inflicted severe psychological and structural damage on the Iranian macroeconomy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has drastically downgraded Iran’s 2026 economic outlook, projecting a severe contraction of 6.1%—a devastating 7.2 percentage point negative revision from earlier forecasts of 1.1% growth.⁴⁰ The IMF attributes this collapse directly to the destruction of energy and transport infrastructure, diminished production, and the sustained disruption around the Strait of Hormuz.⁴⁰ Concurrently, average consumer-price inflation, already exceeding 50% in 2025, is projected to surge to an unsustainable 68.9%, while formal unemployment is forecast to rise to 9.2%.⁴⁰ In the domestic foreign exchange markets, the temporary optimism and surging stock valuations that immediately followed the MoU’s signing have completely evaporated. On July 11, the Central Bank of Iran listed the official exchange rate at a staggering 1,343,562 rials to the US dollar (up from 1,341,931 rials on July 9), and 1,536,879 rials to the Euro.⁴¹ This rapid currency depreciation is devastating household purchasing power, forcing the Iranian population to bear the brunt of the war, sanctions, and years of systemic economic mismanagement through fewer jobs and collapsing incomes.⁴⁰

Kinetic Escalation

The kinetic environment in the Persian Gulf and broader Middle East deteriorated rapidly and violently beginning on July 7, driven primarily by Iran’s aggressive militarization of the PGSA and its attempt to enforce a maritime toll scheme. Formally established on May 5, 2026, the PGSA was designed by the Iranian government to assert legal and administrative control over a massive 22,000-square-kilometer “supervisory zone” extending from Mount Mobarak to Fujairah and Umm al-Quwain in the United Arab Emirates.⁸ By forcing shipowners to apply for transit permits and pay tolls via sanctions-resistant cryptocurrency channels—ostensibly to avoid sea mines and military confrontations—the IRGC sought to transform a physical wartime chokepoint into a permanent, revenue-generating regulatory asset.⁸ The US Treasury countered this by designating the PGSA under counterterrorism authorities on May 27, and expanding FAQ 1249 on May 29 to explicitly prohibit U.S. persons from paying tolls or even receiving guarantees of safe passage from the Iranian government.⁴⁴

When international shipping largely ignored the PGSA’s mandates, Iran initiated a coordinated campaign to force compliance, targeting three commercial vessels within a narrow 24-hour window between July 6 and July 7.⁴ The targeted vessels included the Al Rekayyat, a Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier owned by the state-owned shipping company Nakilat, which was struck on its port side by a projectile near Oman, causing a fire in the engine room and prompting the crew to abandon ship.¹⁸ Additionally, the Wedyan, a Saudi-flagged crude oil supertanker managed by Bahri, was damaged by an Iranian-fired missile off the Omani coast; its owner Bahri confirmed it remained seaworthy with secure cargo, despite likely suffering structural harm.[18, 19, 46, 47, 47] A third vessel, the Liberia-flagged Cyprus Prosperity, was hit by a drone but suffered only minor damage and continued sailing.⁴⁸ The deliberate targeting of Qatari and Saudi assets is highly significant; Qatar currently serves as a primary mediator in the Bürgenstock peace process, and the strikes indicate that the IRGC is willing to target the economic lifelines of diplomatic intermediaries to maximize leverage and demonstrate the vulnerability of global energy supplies.¹⁸

In immediate response to these unprovoked maritime attacks, US Central Command (CENTCOM) launched a massive, multi-wave retaliatory operation overnight on July 7 and 8, explicitly intended to degrade Iran’s capability to threaten freedom of navigation and impose heavy costs for violating the ceasefire.²⁵ The US military struck over 80 discrete targets across Iran using precision munitions.²⁵ The target matrix heavily focused on coastal infrastructure, destroying air defense systems, command and control networks, coastal radar sites, anti-ship missile launchers, airport runways, and more than 60 IRGC small boats operating in and around the strait.²⁵ On July 9, suspected allied forces—highly likely to be Gulf states operating in covert coordination with the United States—executed additional, unspecified strikes on Iranian infrastructure in Chabahar (Sistan and Baluchistan Province), Bandar Abbas and Qeshm Island (Hormozgan Province), and Ahvaz (Khuzestan Province).¹⁴

Crucially, the United States expanded its targeting matrix far beyond conventional maritime and coastal infrastructure, initiating a campaign of deep geo-economic strikes. Early on the morning of July 9, US cruise missiles targeted and severely damaged the Aq Tekeh Khan railway bridge near Aqqala in the northern Golestan province.²⁴ This strike represents a profound strategic pivot. The bridge is a vital node on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun railway line, a 900-kilometer corridor inaugurated in 2014 that connects Iran’s national railway network to Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.²⁴ By severing this logistics chokepoint, the US is directly degrading Iran’s overland, sanctions-resilient trade routes that facilitate access to Central Asian, Russian, and Chinese markets.²⁴ This strike signals a willingness by Washington to disrupt the broader International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ambitions, demonstrating to Moscow and Beijing that their overland connectivity with Tehran is highly vulnerable to US precision fires.²⁴ While the head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Railways claimed engineers rebuilt one damaged track on the Mashhad route within 15 hours, the structural damage to the Aq Tekeh Khan bridge remains a significant logistical hurdle.⁵⁶

In response to these overwhelming US strikes, Iran initiated a desperate campaign of horizontal escalation aimed at imposing extreme political and security costs on US regional partners. On July 9, the IRGC Aerospace and Naval forces fired large salvos of drones and ballistic missiles at US military installations hosted by Gulf and regional allies, marking the first time since the MoU was signed that Iran extended its attacks into Jordan and Qatar.⁷ Targets included the Al-Azraq Air Base in Jordan, where the IRGC fired 10 ballistic missiles, though Jordanian air defense systems successfully intercepted and shot down 20 incoming projectiles over Zarqa governorate.⁵⁹ Additional strikes targeted Camp Arifjan and the Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, where 13 drones and two ballistic missiles were intercepted, causing shrapnel damage to electricity lines.⁵⁵ In Bahrain, sirens sounded as defense forces intercepted missile and drone assaults aimed at fuel tanks and the Sheikh Isa and Juffair bases, which host the US Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters.⁷⁶ In Qatar, Iran claimed to target an “early warning system” with one-way kamikaze drones, prompting a brief elevated security threat alert.⁷⁶

Iranian state media justified this massive regional bombardment by accusing the US of striking civilian infrastructure and areas near the perimeter of the Bushehr nuclear power plant—a claim unsupported by independent verification.⁷⁸ This retaliatory doctrine is explicitly designed to fracture the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) willingness to host American forces, attempting to demonstrate that providing basing rights for US assets ensures direct, destructive Iranian bombardment.¹⁴ Furthermore, internal rhetoric within Iran is shifting dangerously in response to the US strikes. On July 8 and 9, prominent Iranian parliamentarians, including National Security Commission Spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei and Economic Commission member Hossein Samsami, publicly stated that continuous US attacks and the failure of traditional deterrence mechanisms necessitate a review of Iran’s defense doctrine, implicitly threatening the militarization of its nuclear program as the country engages in an “existential war”.²⁴

Proxy Group Activities

While Hezbollah’s operational tempo remains subdued and deeply intertwined with the stalled Trilateral Framework Agreement negotiations, the Houthi proxy network in Yemen initiated a drastic and highly lethal escalation in the Red Sea, systematically eroding global maritime security while exploiting a bizarre lack of deterrence from regional actors. Over the weekend of July 4-5, Houthi rebels launched massive, coordinated ground assaults on positions held by the internationally recognized Yemeni government in the Hays district, located south of the strategic Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, effectively shattering the fragile de facto ceasefire within Yemen.⁶¹ Concurrently, the Houthis drastically escalated their maritime operations. On July 5, a commercial cargo ship was attacked by armed gunmen on a skiff 30 nautical miles southwest of Hodeida, resulting in a firefight with onboard security personnel before the assailants retreated to a larger mothership.⁶²

This initial skirmish was merely a precursor to a series of fatal engagements. Between July 6 and July 9, Houthi forces deployed a sophisticated array of weaponry—including unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and skiff-borne boarding and demolition parties—to attack two commercial bulk carriers.⁶³ On July 6, the Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carrier Magic Seas was attacked 51 nautical miles southwest of Hodeidah by eight skiffs and four USVs; fortunately, all 22 crew members were rescued by a UAE merchant vessel and transferred to Djibouti.⁶³

However, the attack on the similarly flagged Eternity C was devastating. Targeted by UAVs and RPGs from four speedboats, the vessel was ultimately sunk on July 9.⁶³ This attack resulted in the tragic deaths of four crew members, while 11 mariners were seized as hostages by Houthi forces.⁶³ Ten survivors were rescued with the coordination of the EU Aspides mission.⁶³ Simultaneously, Iranian-aligned proxy forces in Iraq also mobilized, with pro-Iraqi militia outlets reporting strikes targeting US bases in Iraq, aligning with the broader IRGC horizontal escalation strategy.⁵⁸ This occurred against the backdrop of the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council, led by Iran-linked judge Faiq Zaidan, developing legal initiatives with Prime Minister Ali al Zaydi, who is concurrently scheduled to visit Washington to sign agreements promising to curb Iranian influence in exchange for US investment.¹⁴

Remarkably, the Saudi-led coalition has failed to respond kinetically to these sinkings and hostage-takings. On July 4, following the unauthorized landing of an Iranian civilian aircraft at Sanaa Airport—the first publicly confirmed Iranian flight there in a decade, which transported a Houthi delegation to Tehran for Ali Khamenei’s funeral—Coalition spokesperson Major-General Turki al-Maliki issued a stern warning, promising “unprecedented determination and force” against four named Houthi installations (Hodeidah port, Ras Isa oil terminal, As-Salif port, and Sanaa International Airport) if the Houthis violated Yemeni sovereignty or targeted the Kingdom.[66, 67, 66] Yet, despite two sinkings, four deaths, and 11 hostages taken in the subsequent six days, the coalition executed zero airstrikes against the identified targets.⁶³ This profound inaction indicates a deep reluctance in Riyadh to reignite the Yemeni conflict and a strategic decoupling from US kinetic efforts, effectively granting the Houthis operational impunity in the Red Sea to apply pressure on the global economy in tandem with Tehran’s operations in the Strait of Hormuz.⁶⁴

Geopolitical Postures

The violent breakdown of the ceasefire and the rapid expansion of the target matrix have forced regional and global powers to recalibrate their diplomatic and security postures, highlighting deep divisions in the strategic approaches to Iranian containment and the preservation of global trade routes.

Chronological Timeline

• July 4: Tensions flare after an unauthorized Iranian aircraft lands at Sanaa Airport (the first such flight in a decade) to transport a Houthi delegation to Tehran.⁶⁷ This prompts severe condemnation from the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council and threats of “unprecedented determination and force” from Saudi-led Coalition spokesperson Major-General Turki al-Maliki.⁶⁷
• July 4–5: Houthi rebels shatter the local de facto ceasefire, launching massive, coordinated ground assaults on internationally recognized government positions in the Hays district, south of Hodeidah.⁶¹
• July 5: A commercial cargo ship is attacked by armed gunmen on a skiff 30 nautical miles southwest of Hodeida, Yemen; onboard security successfully repels the attack.⁶²
• July 6: Houthi forces attack the Liberian-flagged bulk carrier Magic Seas southwest of Hodeida using eight skiffs and four USVs; all 22 crew members are rescued by a UAE merchant vessel.⁶³
• July 6: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun publicly confirms that the government is not fundamentally opposed to appointing a representative to the Iran-Lebanon-US deconfliction cell, though no official appointment is made.²⁶
• July 7: The US Department of the Treasury (OFAC) officially revokes General License X and issues General License X1, immediately halting all new Iranian hydrocarbon sales and mandating that wind-down payments be directed exclusively to blocked, interest-bearing US accounts.³⁰
• July 7: In a coordinated campaign to enforce PGSA tolls, Iran attacks three commercial vessels—the Qatari LNG carrier Al Rekayyat, the Saudi crude tanker Wedyan, and the Liberia-flagged Cyprus Prosperity.¹⁸
• July 7: US President Donald Trump declares via social media that the Islamabad MoU ceasefire is “OVER” in response to the shipping attacks.⁴
• July 7–8: US CENTCOM launches a massive wave of retaliatory precision strikes overnight hitting over 80 Iranian targets, including air defense systems, coastal radar, and destroying over 60 IRGC small boats.⁷
• July 8: Iranian parliamentarians Ebrahim Rezaei and Hossein Samsami publicly state the necessity of altering Iran’s nuclear doctrine in response to continuous US military strikes, citing an “existential war”.⁵¹
• July 8: The Lebanese government officially announces its intention to participate in upcoming tripartite negotiations in Rome (July 15-16), despite the lack of an IDF withdrawal from the designated pilot zones.²²
• July 9: US forces expand targeting parameters, launching cruise missiles in the early morning that severely damage the Aq Tekeh Khan railway bridge on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun line in Golestan province, disrupting Eurasian logistics corridors to Russia and China.⁵⁵
• July 9: The Houthi-attacked bulk carrier Eternity C officially sinks in the Red Sea; four crew members are confirmed killed, and 11 are taken hostage by Houthi forces.⁶³
• July 9: Likely Gulf states, operating in coordination with the US, execute strikes against Iranian targets in Chabahar, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, and Ahvaz.¹⁴
• July 9: Iran executes wide-scale horizontal escalation, launching ballistic missiles and drones at US military bases in Jordan (Al-Azraq), Kuwait (Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem), Bahrain (Sheikh Isa, Juffair), and Qatar.⁵¹
• July 9: Iranian state media falsely accuses the US of striking the perimeter of the Bushehr nuclear power plant to justify the regional missile barrages.⁷⁰
• July 10: Following backchannel communications, US officials indicate that Iran privately admitted “mistakes” in its maritime targeting, and President Trump agrees to continue negotiations via Qatari mediation while maintaining severe military and economic pressure.¹²
• July 10: Iranian Member of Parliament Esmail Kowsari and regime analysts publicly threaten to add the UAE to Iran’s “target bank” and strike its maritime, rail, and air transport infrastructure, accusing the Emirates of facilitating the US and allied strikes.¹⁴

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. US – Iran Sign Islamabad MoU and its Implications – Drishti IAS, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/us-iran-sign-islamabad-mou-and-its-implications
2. From War to Negotiations: Can the Bürgenstock Talks Transform US-Iran Relations?, accessed July 11, 2026, https://rasanah-iiis.org/english/monitoring-and-translation/reports/from-war-to-negotiations-can-the-burgenstock-talks-transform-us-iran-relations/
3. Islamabad Memorandum – Wikipedia, accessed July 11, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad_Memorandum
4. 2026 Iran war | Deal, Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, Map, & Conflict, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
5. Trump says U.S. and Iran will keep talking but declares ceasefire ‘OVER!’, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/07/10/trump-says-us-iran-will-keep-talking-declares-ceasefire-over/
6. The US-Iran Islamabad MoU: Assessing the Prospects for the Bürgenstock Negotiations, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2026/06/22/us-iran-burgenstock-negotiations/
7. Iran Hits Bases in Bahrain, Kuwait After US Strikes Near Strait of Hormuz – Caspian News, accessed July 11, 2026, https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-hits-bases-in-bahrain-kuwait-after-us-strikes-near-strait-of-hormuz-2026-7-9-0/
8. Persian Gulf Strait Authority – Wikipedia, accessed July 11, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_Strait_Authority
9. Countering Iran’s Latest “Smart Control” Gambit in the Strait of Hormuz, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/countering-irans-latest-smart-control-gambit-strait-hormuz
10. Publicly declare Strait of Hormuz open, won’t attack ships: U.S. demand to Iran, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/publicly-declare-hormuz-open-wont-attack-ships-us-demand-to-iran/article71209260.ece
11. US demands Iran publicly state that Strait of Hormuz is open and Tehran won’t attack ships anymore, accessed July 11, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-war-hormuz-july-10-2026-4bf4fdd1f4d782ff08f60d152909faee
12. US insists Iran commit to stopping attacks in Hormuz strait, say US officials, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/us-insists-iran-commit-to-stopping-attacks-in-hormuz-strait-say-us-officials
13. US Says Iran Acknowledged ‘Mistake’ In Strait Attacks Ahead Of Oman Talks, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.rferl.org/a/us-says-iran-acknowledged-mistake-in-strait-attacks-ahead-of-oman-talks/33801548.html
14. Iran Update Special Report, July 10, 2026, accessed July 11, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-10-2026/
15. Trump says US-Iran talks to continue as ceasefire unravels, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.chinadailyasia.com/article/636266
16. Memorandum of Understanding between the USA and Iran, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.eda.admin.ch/en/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-usa-and-iran
17. Sharif speaks to Iran, Qatar leaders to steady stalled US-Iran peace talks, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-pm-shehbaz-sharif-iran-qatar-us-iran-talks-regional-tensions-ptag-2945455-2026-07-11
18. Qatari LNG Ship Struck in Strait of Hormuz, Testing US Talks – Insurance Journal, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2026/07/07/876415.htm
19. Live updates: U.S. and Iran to continue talks after tensions escalated …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-trump-ceasefire-talks-strait-of-hormuz/
20. Iran War News Highlights: Have launched new strikes against Iran, says US military, accessed July 11, 2026, https://indianexpress.com/article/world/khamenei-funeral-live-updates-us-iran-war-trump-israel-iran-peace-talks-10774701/
21. Mojtaba Khamenei absent from public view during father’s burial | Iran International, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607100011
22. West Asia War updates: U.S. strikes Iran after Hormuz tanker attacks …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/west-asia-war-live-updates-july-7-2026-khamenei-funeral-ceremonies/article71191969.ece
23. Tanker traffic slows in Strait of Hormuz after US and Iran clashes, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/07/tanker-traffic-slows-strait-hormuz-after-us-and-iran-clashes
24. Is the Iran-US MoU dead – or are we asking the wrong question?, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607101962
25. US and Iran exchange intensifying fire across Mideast, threatening ceasefire deal, accessed July 11, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-war-oil-july-9-2026-0472764b119d7aa204de4f7f5e44a9bf
26. Iran Update Special Report, July 6, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 11, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-6-2026/
27. Lebanon in the Shadow of the U.S.-Iran MOU: Risks and Opportunities – CSIS, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/lebanon-shadow-us-iran-mou-risks-and-opportunities
28. Araghchi calls new Lebanon mechanism ‘first test’ of US-Iran understandings, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606228189
29. US, Iran to form ‘deconflicting cell’ on Lebanon, sidelining Lebanese state – AL-MONITOR, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/06/us-iran-form-deconflicting-cell-lebanon-sidelining-lebanese-state
30. OFAC Reverses US Sanctions Relaxation Related to US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding, accessed July 11, 2026, https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/ofac-reverses-us-sanctions-relaxation-related-to-us-iran-memorandum-of-understanding/
31. OFAC Rescinds Iranian Sanctions Relaxation Following Renewed Conflict | Foley & Lardner, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2026/07/ofac-rescinds-iranian-sanctions-relaxation-following-renewed-conflict/
32. OFAC Revokes Iran General License X: a Stark Reminder That Evolving Sanctions Require Continuous Vigilance | Bracewell LLP, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.bracewell.com/resources/ofac-revokes-iran-general-license-x-a-stark-reminder-that-evolving-sanctions-require-continuous-vigilance/
33. Issuance of Amended Iran-related General License | Office of Foreign Assets Control, accessed July 11, 2026, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20260707
34. U.S. Authorizes Sale of Iranian Oil for 60 Days | Insights – Holland & Knight, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/06/us-authorizes-sale-of-iranian-oil-for-60-days
35. Trump Administration Temporarily Eases US Sanctions on Iranian Oil – Freshfields, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.freshfields.com/en/our-thinking/blogs/a-fresh-take/trump-administration-temporarily-eases-us-sanctions-on-iranian-oil-102n8jk
36. OFAC General License X1 – Revocation of General License X and Winding Down of Energy Sector Sanctions Relief – Clyde & Co, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2026/07/ofac-general-license-x1-revocation-of-general-lice
37. OFAC Issues General License X1, Withdrawing General License X’s Grant of Broad Sanctions Relief on Iran’s Oil and Petroleum Sector, accessed July 11, 2026, https://natlawreview.com/article/ofac-issues-general-license-x1-withdrawing-general-license-xs-grant-broad-sanctions
38. The evolving landscape of Iran-related sanctions: impacts of U.S. policy shifts on international business – A&O Shearman, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/the-evolving-landscape-of-iran-related-sanctions
39. Treasury Targets Key Supreme Leader Financier and Iran’s Shadow Exchange Houses, accessed July 11, 2026, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0558
40. Iran faces region’s harshest mix of wartime contraction and inflation, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607114644
41. Rial rebounds and stocks soar, but Iranians still grapple with high prices, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/6/18/rial-rebounds-and-stocks-soar-but-iranians-still-grapple-with-high-prices
42. Iran releases currency exchange rates for July 11, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.trend.az/business/4205911.html
43. Iran’s Negotiating Weapon: The Persian Gulf Strait Authority – SpecialEurasia, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2026/06/01/iran-persian-gulf-authority/
44. 1249. Are “toll” payments to Iran for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz authorized? Is receiving guarantees or services from Iran for or related to safe passage authorized, even when no payment is made? – Office of Foreign Assets Control, accessed July 11, 2026, https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1249
45. OFAC Expands Guidance on Strait of Hormuz “Safe Passage” Restrictions, accessed July 11, 2026, https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/ofac-expands-guidance-on-strait-of-hormuz-safe-passage-restrictions/
46. US declares new sanctions on Iran, PGSA condemns efforts in Hormuz | The Jerusalem Post, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.jpost.com/international/article-897778
47. U.S. hits dozens of Iranian targets in retaliatory strikes after ship attacks in Strait of Hormuz, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-us-war-strait-of-hormuz-trump-nato/
48. Iran Fires on Kuwait and Bahrain Bases After US Strikes – MiGFlug, accessed July 11, 2026, https://migflug.com/jetflights/sirens-at-dawn-iran-answers-us-strikes-kuwait-bahrain/
49. Oil gains after vessels attacked near Strait of Hormuz, accessed July 11, 2026, https://virginiabusiness.com/oil-prices-rise-after-vessel-attacks-near-strait-of-hormuz/
50. US says it destroyed over 60 Iranian boats after commercial ships targeted in Strait of Hormuz, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense/4639783/us-strikes-iran-targeted-three-commercial-vessels/
51. Iran Update Special Report, July 9, 2026, accessed July 11, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-9-2026/
52. A remote bridge shows how US-Iran war is expanding, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607090077
53. US Strikes Iran Rail Bridge to China, Russia – Unusual Whales, accessed July 11, 2026, https://unusualwhales.com/news/us-strikes-iran-railway-bridge-china-russia
54. Live updates: For a third night in a row, US and Iran trade strikes | Israel National News, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/423124
55. US Attacks Northern Iran, No Casualties Reported – Islam Times, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.islamtimes.com/en/news/1291087/us-attacks-northern-iran-no-casualties-reported
56. U.S. Strikes on Iranian Rail and Coastal Infrastructure Put Central Asia’s Southern Routes Under Pressure, accessed July 11, 2026, https://timesca.com/u-s-strikes-on-iranian-rail-and-coastal-infrastructure-put-central-asias-southern-routes-under-pressure/
57. Sirens sound in Gulf states following US attack on Iran | The Jerusalem Post, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-901944
58. US strikes target Iran’s ability to control Strait of Hormuz after Trump declares MOU ‘over’, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/4641840/us-strike-iran-strait-of-hormuz/
59. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says hit US command center, Jordanian air base with 10 ballistic missiles – Middle East Monitor, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260709-irans-revolutionary-guard-says-hit-us-command-center-jordanian-air-base-with-10-ballistic-missiles/
60. US strikes on Iran trigger missile alerts in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/us-strikes-iran-kuwait-bahrain-qatar-missile-alerts-hormuz-ceasefire-ptag-2943762-2026-07-09
61. Yemen’s Houthi Rebels Kill 16 Soldiers of Internationally Recognised Government in a Latest Attack, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeBYRxAO7Gs
62. Cargo ship comes under fire off coast of Houthi-controlled Yemen, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/cargo-ship-comes-under-fire-off-coast-of-houthi-controlled-yemen/
63. Two Ships Sunk in Red Sea, Zero Coalition Airstrikes, accessed July 11, 2026, https://houseofsaud.com/two-ships-sunk-zero-airstrikes/
64. Araghchi Called Faisal the Day Iran Struck the Wedyan – House of Saud, accessed July 11, 2026, https://houseofsaud.com/araghchi-called-faisal-the-day-iran-struck-the-wedyan/
65. US and Iran trade strikes: Trump says ceasefire ‘over’ after attacks on vessels in Hormuz, Bahrain and Kuwait – Gulf News, accessed July 11, 2026, https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/us-hits-iran-with-new-strikes-sanctions-over-commercial-shipping-attacks-1.500600494
66. Morning Briefing: July 10, 2026 – Anadolu Ajansı, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/morning-briefing-july-10-2026/3993788
67. Yemen: Briefing : What’s In Blue, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2026/07/yemen-briefing-2.php
68. Al-Alimi: Houthi Escalation Is a Direct Extension of the Iranian Project and a Threat to Yemen and the Region – Washington Center for Yemeni Studies (WCYS), accessed July 11, 2026, https://wcys.org/al-alimi-houthi-escalation-is-a-direct-extension-of-the-iranian-project-and-a-threat-to-yemen-and-the-region/
69. Oil tanker hit at Hormuz: US accuses Iran of attacking 2 commercial ships, mulls counter strike, accessed July 11, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/oil-tanker-hit-at-hormuz-us-accuses-iran-of-attacking-2-commercial-ships-mulls-counter-strike/articleshow/132228226.cms
70. Iran fires 10 missiles at Jordan after US strikes reported near Bushehr nuclear plant, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-fires-10-missiles-at-jordan-after-us-strikes-reported-near-bushehr-nuclear-plant/
71. Iran announced a strike on a US base in Jordan after new US attacks, accessed July 11, 2026, https://unn.ua/en/amp/iran-announced-a-strike-on-a-us-base-in-jordan-after-new-us-attacks
72. State funeral of Ali Khamenei – Wikipedia, accessed July 11, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funeral_of_Ali_Khamenei
73. Ali Khamenei buried in Mashhad after days-long funeral | Iran International, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607096397
74. Khamenei buried after dayslong funeral procession as successor son remains out of sight, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-buried-following-dayslong-funeral-procession-as-successor-remains-out-of-sight/
75. ‘Blatant corruption’: New US sanctions target Mojtaba Khamenei’s moneyman, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/blatant-corruption-new-us-sanctions-target-mojtaba-khameneis-moneyman/
76. Iran says it targeted sites in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain in response to US strikes, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iran-says-it-targeted-sites-in-kuwait-qatar-bahrain-in-response-to-us-strikes/
77. Ceasefire plunged into greater uncertainty amid fresh US strikes in Iran – as it happened, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/08/us-iran-strikes-trump-nato-summit-live-updates
78. US and Iran trade escalating strikes as supreme leader is buried after days-long funeral, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/09/iran-trade-strikes-ceasefire-extended-donald-trump

1. Executive Summary

In the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury (February–May 2026) and the subsequent signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17, 2026, the strategic and geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has been fundamentally and permanently altered. Despite facing an unprecedented and overwhelming application of conventional military force by the United States and Israel—an offensive that included the successful decapitation strike against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the decimation of Iran’s conventional military infrastructure—the Islamic Republic of Iran has resolutely refused to capitulate. Consequently, the United States failed to achieve its primary strategic objectives: regime change, the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, and the neutralization of Tehran’s regional proxy network known as the Axis of Resistance.

This intelligence assessment leverages open-source intelligence (OSINT) to conduct a deep-dive analysis into the systemic blind spots that plague both U.S. and Western policy regarding Iran, as well as the equally critical blind spots overlooked by the Iranian regime itself. The United States consistently fails to recognize that its vast tactical superiority does not translate to strategic victory against a state architecture explicitly designed to absorb massive infrastructural and leadership losses. Western policymakers fundamentally misunderstand the Iranian calculus, routinely projecting Western rational-actor models onto a regime driven by historical memory, a deep-seated strategic culture of resistance, and an asymmetric tolerance for economic and military pain.

Furthermore, the core drivers of Iranian resistance are shifting, requiring a reassessment of fundamental assumptions. While revolutionary Shiite theology and the traditions of the 1979 revolution provided the foundational rhetoric of the republic, the modern Iranian state is increasingly defined by the pursuit of raw power, the preservation of monopolistic wealth, and the maintenance of national prestige—assets managed almost exclusively by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). For the IRGC, capitulation is viewed not merely as a diplomatic concession or an avenue for economic integration, but as existential death. By operationalizing its “Mosaic Defense” doctrine, Iran has successfully democratized cost asymmetry, trading conventional military attrition for catastrophic geo-economic disruption, particularly through the weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz.

Conversely, the Iranian regime harbors severe blind spots regarding its own domestic longevity. In prioritizing absolute regime survival through militarized coercion, the state has entirely alienated its populace, guaranteeing that future societal crises will be explosive. While the current trajectory indicates an entrenchment of hardline military governance under the newly elevated Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, the systemic factors driving Iranian resistance are not entirely immutable. Change, however, will not be driven by external conventional military pressure, which only serves to unify the security apparatus. Instead, future shifts in Iran’s strategic posture will likely stem from the internal unsustainability of its coercive domestic governance and the potential fracturing of the IRGC’s monolithic control over a deeply fractured and economically ruined society.

2. The Strategic Landscape of 2026: Operational Review

To understand the current geopolitical stalemate, one must first analyze the scale, scope, and ultimate failure of the military campaigns that defined the first half of 2026. The strategic environment is characterized by the limits of conventional power projection and the triumph of asymmetric deterrence.

2.1 Operation Epic Fury and the Illusion of Decisive Force

The early months of 2026 witnessed an unprecedented escalation in direct, state-on-state hostilities between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Driven by Iran’s advancing nuclear threshold capabilities, its continued regional destabilization efforts, and the unresolved geopolitical legacy of the 2025 Twelve-Day War, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026.¹

Operation Epic Fury represented the apex of Western conventional military projection. The opening salvo achieved what many intelligence analysts previously considered the ultimate strategic blow: a historic decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, alongside his daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter, within his compound in Tehran.⁴ The working hypothesis in Washington and Tel Aviv was that the sudden removal of the absolute apex of the Iranian leadership structure, combined with overwhelming kinetic pressure, would fracture the regime’s command and control, leading to rapid capitulation or internal collapse.²

Over the subsequent weeks, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) executed a relentless and highly sophisticated air campaign. The sheer volume of munitions deployed was intended to fundamentally erase Iran’s capacity to function as a regional military power.

The stated objectives of the U.S. administration were decidedly maximalist. The United States sought to enforce complete regime change, achieve the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, eradicate its ballistic missile and drone manufacturing programs, and terminate Iranian financial and military support for non-state armed groups in the Levant, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula.⁵ Yet, after more than two months of the most intense bombardment seen in the twenty-first century, the United States failed to achieve a single one of these overarching strategic goals.⁵ Iran absorbed the punishment and retaliated with hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones across the Middle East, striking U.S. embassies, military installations, and critical oil infrastructure.¹

2.2 The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

Facing a rapidly escalating global economic crisis triggered by Iranian asymmetric retaliation—specifically the interdiction of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz—the United States was forced to abandon its maximalist military objectives and enter into diplomatic negotiations. Mediated by Pakistan, these negotiations culminated in the signing of a 14-point agreement officially titled the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17, 2026.⁸

The optics of the signing were historically laden. U.S. President Donald Trump signed the document at the Palace of Versailles in France, flanked by French President Emmanuel Macron and Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot.⁸ Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the document remotely from Tehran, alongside the Prime Minister of Pakistan who signed as the official mediator.⁹ This followed an earlier digital signing of the same framework by Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.¹⁰ The MoU established a 60-day ceasefire timeline designed to facilitate the negotiation of a final, permanent peace deal, offering prospective sanctions waivers on Iranian oil and financial reconstruction mechanisms in exchange for a temporary halt to Iranian hostilities.¹⁰

However, the MoU is widely viewed within the intelligence community as a de facto capitulation by the West. By explicitly excluding Iran’s ballistic missile program and its Axis of Resistance proxy network from the core disarmament agenda, the memorandum effectively left Tehran’s primary asymmetric deterrents completely intact.¹¹ The Iranian parliament and the IRGC rapidly seized upon this, framing the MoU not as a pragmatic compromise, but as a historic strategic defeat for the United States. Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf publicly characterized the agreement as a victory, declaring that the U.S. and Israel were “forced to practically recognise Iran’s allies in the Axis of Resistance” by agreeing to the terms.¹²

Furthermore, the document contains vague and highly contested language. Paragraph 5 of the agreement, for instance, requires Iran to “make arrangements using its best efforts” to discuss the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.¹³ This ambiguity has allowed Iran to continue asserting practical control over the strait post-ceasefire, testing the limits of the agreement and continuing to strike commercial vessels to exact economic tolls.¹⁴

3. The Western Blind Spot: Flawed Assumptions in Strategic Culture

The operational failure of Epic Fury and the subsequent diplomatic concessions of the Islamabad MoU highlight a severe and systemic intelligence blind spot in Washington and allied Western capitals. U.S. policy operates on a foundational, yet fatally flawed, assumption: that extreme conventional pressure will inevitably force a rational adversary to capitulate in order to preserve its state infrastructure, civilian economy, and standard of living. This approach fundamentally ignores the unique tenets of Iranian strategic culture.

3.1 Asymmetry of Commitment and Divergent Pain Thresholds

A critical oversight by Western military planners is the profound asymmetry of commitment between the belligerents. For the United States, the conflict with Iran remains, fundamentally, a “war of choice.” U.S. strategic decision-making is heavily governed by short-term domestic political timelines, specifically the impending 2026 midterm elections, and an acute sensitivity to global energy prices and domestic inflation.⁵

For the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, the conflict is not a matter of geopolitical positioning; it is an existential war for absolute survival.⁵ Because the United States and Israel openly signaled their intent to physically overthrow the regime and assassinate its leadership, Tehran’s threshold for absorbing pain expanded exponentially.⁵ Operating on the belief that capitulation meant execution, the Iranian leadership demonstrated a willingness to absorb massive infrastructural damage, the systemic destruction of its conventional military, the loss of its Supreme Leader, and severe civilian casualties rather than surrender.⁵

The U.S. intelligence apparatus vastly overestimated its ability to compel Tehran to overturn four decades of established security doctrine through high-altitude bombing alone.⁵ As the war progressed, it became a contest not of military hardware, but of societal pain tolerance. As civilian casualties mounted across the region and the global economic fallout from maritime disruptions spiked energy prices, it was the United States—highly sensitive to political pressure and economic instability—that blinked first, rushing to the negotiating table from a position of eroding leverage.⁵

3.2 The Geopolitics of Geography and the Power of Spoiling

The West routinely overlooks or underestimates the inherent, immutable strategic advantages provided by Iran’s physical geography. Iran commands the entire northern shore of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime chokepoint through which approximately one-third of the world’s energy resources and critical fertilizer shipments transit daily.⁵ The highly mountainous, rugged terrain of southern Iran, particularly the Zagros range, magnifies this geographic advantage. It allows the IRGC to conceal highly decentralized, highly mobile missile and drone launch sites deep within subterranean tunnel networks, creating a permanent threat architecture that cannot be eliminated by conventional airstrikes, only temporarily managed.⁵

Furthermore, U.S. military assessments suffer from a reliance on metrics of conventional destruction, such as counting destroyed launchers, blinded radar stations, or bombed depots.¹⁶ In a conventional war against a peer adversary, these metrics define victory. However, to maintain strategic leverage against the United States, Iran did not need to preserve its entire arsenal; it only needed to preserve a small fraction of its asymmetric capabilities to act as a regional “spoiler”.⁵ By maintaining just enough capacity to disrupt commercial shipping and intermittently strike neighboring Gulf states, Iran retained its primary economic weapon.⁵ The U.S. military’s inability to fully eradicate this spoiling capacity rendered Western tactical successes strategically moot.

3.3 Historical Memory vs. Rational Actor Models

Western analysts frequently project Western rational-actor models onto the Iranian leadership. In this paradigm, if the costs of conflict outweigh the benefits, a state should logically seek peace. However, Iranian strategic culture views the international system as deeply anarchic, hypocritical, and inherently hostile to Iranian sovereignty.¹⁷ This perspective is not merely a cynical theoretical construct; it is forged by deep historical memory.

The Iranian worldview is heavily influenced by foreign interventions, ranging from the 1953 coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, to the devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq War (where the West supported Saddam Hussein), to decades of crippling modern economic sanctions, and the post-9/11 U.S. invasions of neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.¹⁷ Consequently, Iran does not trust international law, global institutions, or the diplomatic guarantees offered by the West.¹⁷

When the United States offers ceasefire terms or memorandums of understanding, Tehran inevitably views them through a lens of profound suspicion.¹⁸ Iranian strategists suspect that any Western diplomatic overture is merely a tactical ruse designed to lull the Republic into complacency, dismantle its deterrents, and pave the way for renewed military action and regime change.¹⁸ Therefore, Iran evaluates any negotiation not by the immediate economic relief it might bring, but strictly by how it impacts the regime’s long-term capacity to resist foreign hegemony. In this calculus, maintaining a hardened, resistant posture is viewed as the only rational choice for long-term survival.

3.4 Supply Chain Blind Spots and Proxy Resiliency

A secondary, yet highly consequential Western blind spot is the failure to comprehensively map and sever the complex financial and material supply chains that sustain the Axis of Resistance. The network remains highly adaptable. Intelligence indicates that U.S. and UK allies sometimes participate—unknowingly—in these illicit supply chains, contributing to the proxy network’s adaptability across both formal and informal economies.¹⁹ A narrow focus on kinetic military strikes fails to address the underlying economic architecture that allows these proxy groups to repeatedly regenerate capabilities.

4. The Iranian Blind Spot: The Illusion of Permanent Coercion

While the West fails to understand Iranian resilience, the Iranian regime is entirely blind to its own internal fragility. The Islamic Republic has survived the 2026 war, but it has done so by mortgaging its domestic future. The Iranian leadership operates under the illusion that permanent, absolute coercion can substitute for political legitimacy and social cohesion.

4.1 The Hubris of Regional Overextension

Prior to the outbreak of the 2026 war, Iran suffered from a severe strategic blind spot regarding the limits of its regional proxy network. In 2023, Iranian strategists developed the hubristic “Unity of the Arenas” strategy, operating on the assumption that all non-state allies across the Middle East could seamlessly intervene together militarily against Israel or the United States.²⁰ This grand strategy heavily influenced Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar to launch the October 7, 2023 attacks, believing the entire Axis of Resistance would overwhelm Israel and achieve ultimate victory.²⁰

Instead, this miscalculation initiated a multi-year cascade of conflicts that led to the severe degradation of Hezbollah—putting the group near collapse¹⁵—the heavy bombardment of Iranian infrastructure, and the eventual death of the Supreme Leader.¹⁵ Iran failed to realize that its non-state allies, while functioning as force multipliers, are heavily constrained by the political and social realities of their host countries. Following the 2023 attacks and the subsequent Gaza war, the Axis of Resistance suffered severe and repeated military setbacks.²¹ Consequently, the network eroded significantly and failed to provide the expected deterrence or play a major role in the direct defense of Iranian territory during the 2026 conflict.⁵

4.2 Economic Ruin and the Alienation of Society

Domestically, the regime has entirely blinded itself to the catastrophic economic reality faced by its citizens. By prioritizing regional adventurism, military prestige, and proxy warfare over pragmatic governance and public welfare, the state has driven the Iranian economy into the abyss.²²

While economic conditions preceding the 2026 war were already dire, they have become catastrophic in its aftermath.²² In December 2025 and January 2026, the national currency, the rial, collapsed entirely, plunging to an unprecedented 1.4 million to the U.S. dollar.²³ Inflation spiraled beyond 40 percent, and the cost of basic food staples surged by an average of 72 percent.²³ The government’s decision to alter fuel subsidy tiers in the midst of this crisis effectively triggered nationwide economic protests. These demonstrations originally began on December 28, 2025, with shopkeepers shuttering Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, but rapidly evolved into intense, nationwide political revolts aimed directly at the clerical establishment, with some factions even chanting in support of the exiled Reza Pahlavi.²³

For the post-revolutionary generation—where 67 percent of the population is under forty—the destruction of multi-billion-dollar military investments during Epic Fury, while the state failed to provide basic economic security or public services, severed the last remaining threads of the social contract.²²

4.3 The Unseen Cost of Mass Repression

Rather than addressing the underlying economic grievances or attempting to politically reintegrate society, the Iranian regime has chosen to manage its populace entirely through force, fear, and exhaustion.²³ During the January 2026 uprisings, the state enacted total internet blackouts and deployed security forces to brutally suppress dissent. Human rights organizations documented extensive evidence of coordinated mass killings beginning on January 8, 2026, noting that security forces specifically targeted protesters and bystanders with lethal shots to the head and torso.²³

The regime utilizes a “dual reality” tactic: it selectively eases the day-to-day enforcement of minor social restrictions (such as the mandatory hijab) to serve as a superficial pressure valve, while simultaneously intensifying political executions, arbitrary detentions, and militarized urban control to crush any organized opposition.²³ While this extreme brutality ensures the regime’s short-term survival, it constitutes a massive strategic blind spot. The leadership fails to realize that each application of mass lethal force deepens societal alienation, ensuring that future crises will be increasingly violent and harder to contain. The regime retains coercive capacity, but it rules a population waiting for an opportunity to revolt.

5. Deconstructing the Drivers of Non-Capitulation

To answer why Iran will not surrender, intelligence analysis must deconstruct the specific ideological, material, and psychological drivers of the regime. The West frequently and erroneously attributes Iranian intransigence solely to religious fanaticism. While theology plays a role, OSINT analysis indicates that the actual drivers of state behavior are deeply rooted in power preservation, economic monopolization, and the maintenance of national prestige.

5.1 Religion and Tradition: Fading yet Foundational Lexicons

In the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, ideological export and Shiite religious zealotry heavily dictated Iranian foreign and domestic policy. Today, however, religion functions less as the primary driver of strategic decision-making and more as the mandatory lexicon through which state actions must be justified.²⁴

The tradition of the revolution was explicitly anti-monarchical and anti-dynastic.²⁶ Yet, the events of early 2026 highlight a profound contradiction. The rapid elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old second son of the late Ali Khamenei, to the position of Supreme Leader signals the introduction of a quasi-hereditary, dynastic logic into the heart of the Republic.²⁶ Mojtaba lacks the deep theological erudition and revolutionary prestige of his predecessors; he has maintained a low public profile, never holding elected office, and is largely unknown to the general public.²⁶ Compounding this lack of organic legitimacy is the fact that Mojtaba has not appeared in public since the February 28 decapitation strike. Intelligence suggests he may have been seriously injured in the bombing, forcing Iranian state media to rely on artificial intelligence-augmented videos splicing past footage to project his active leadership.²⁶

His succession was heavily orchestrated and forced through by the IRGC and hardline power centers, which pressured the Assembly of Experts during the chaos of the war.³ This transition fundamentally damages the regime’s founding revolutionary claims against hereditary rule.²⁶ It proves that the tradition of clerical republicanism has been subjugated by the immediate need for regime survival.²³ The regime will not capitulate because doing so would require admitting that the divine mandate they claim has failed; they must maintain the facade of religious tradition to legitimize their authoritarian control.

5.2 Power and Wealth: The IRGC Conglomerate

The refusal to surrender is inextricably linked to the raw material interests, power, and wealth of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Over the past two decades, the IRGC has mutated from a purely ideological military organization into an expansive, monopolistic economic and political conglomerate.²³ The IRGC commands between 150,000 and 190,000 active soldiers, oversees roughly 1 million Basij militiamen, and controls vast, lucrative sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, energy, telecommunications, and illicit smuggling networks.²⁷

For the IRGC, capitulation to U.S. demands and subsequent Western economic integration is viewed as an existential economic threat. Opening the Iranian economy to foreign investment and international banking transparency would directly threaten the IRGC’s monopolistic control over national wealth. The IRGC requires a state of perpetual, managed geopolitical conflict and heavy sanctions to justify its outsized military budgets, its extralegal domestic authority, and its dominance over the civilian government.²³ Surrender does not mean peace for the IRGC elite; it means the systematic dismantling of their power structure and the loss of their vast wealth. Consequently, they will force the nation to endure any level of hardship to maintain their hegemony.

5.3 Prestige and Image: The Mythos of Resistance

Prestige and national image are critical, frequently underestimated elements in Iran’s decision-making calculus. The regime’s entire internal justification relies on projecting an image of invulnerability, divine favor, and steadfast resistance to Western imperialism.²² Surrendering to the United States would shatter the foundational mythos of the Islamic Republic: that it is the successful vanguard of anti-imperial resistance in the Middle East.

This was vividly demonstrated following the assassination of Ali Khamenei. Rather than hiding in fear, the state orchestrated a massive, six-day funeral procession that traveled across multiple cities in Iraq and Iran, culminating in his burial at the holiest Shia shrine in Mashhad.⁴ Iranian state media reported that between 41 and 43 million people participated in the ceremonies, which spanned five cities across Iraq and Iran.⁴ The crowds carried red placards demanding revenge, waved banners reading “Kill Trump,” and participated in a highly choreographed assertion of national prestige and social cohesion.⁴

This funeral was not merely an act of mourning; it was a psychological mobilization designed to broadcast the regime’s unbroken ideological fire and physical resilience to the world.²⁹ Conceding defeat or capitulating to U.S. demands shortly after such a monumental display of nationalistic fervor would permanently fracture the regime’s internal credibility and destroy its image among its remaining regional proxies.

6. Operationalizing Survival: The “Mosaic Defense” Doctrine

Iran’s ability to survive the massive kinetic onslaught of Operation Epic Fury was not a matter of luck or accidental resilience; it was the direct result of a deliberate, long-term military doctrine designed over two decades. Recognizing that it could never quantitatively or qualitatively match the conventional blue-water naval power or air superiority of the United States or Israel, Iran developed the “Mosaic Defense” doctrine, reportedly incorporating it into its strategy as early as 2005 in response to the threat of a U.S. invasion.³⁰ This doctrine functions as a comprehensive political-military framework that operationalizes guerrilla warfare logic on a state-wide scale.³⁰

6.1 Trading Time for Space and Prioritizing Endurance

Western strategic thought heavily relies on conventional metrics of success—rapid maneuvers, decapitation strikes, and advanced technological platforms driven by artificial intelligence.¹⁶ The Mosaic Defense doctrine fundamentally rejects this paradigm. It is built on the guerrilla premise that a weaker party cannot prevail by fighting on a stronger party’s terms.

Instead of seeking a decisive conventional victory, the doctrine prioritizes absolute survival and endurance.¹⁶ By regulating the tempo of violence, absorbing initial strikes, and extending the conflict’s timeline, Iran effectively converted the material superiority of the U.S. and Israel into a massive logistical and political liability.¹⁶ The strategic goal was to sustain asymmetric pressure globally until the domestic political willingness of its adversaries to continue the war eroded faster than Iran’s physical capacity to fight.¹⁶ This strategy successfully outlasted the Trump administration’s patience, leaving the U.S. with no option but to settle for the Islamabad MoU to reopen shipping lanes.¹⁶

6.2 Decentralization and “Mosquito Fleets”

When the U.S. military degraded and destroyed most of Iran’s centralized conventional navy, air defense, and command structures, the Mosaic doctrine adapted seamlessly through rapid decentralization.¹⁶ The doctrine relies on highly autonomous local commands that are empowered to continue military operations even when central communications to Tehran are severed.⁵

In the maritime domain, rather than relying on a vulnerable, concentrated blue-water navy, the IRGC deployed highly dispersed formations of armed speedboats, colloquially referred to by analysts as “mosquito fleets”.¹⁶ These fleets asserted practical control over the Strait of Hormuz without presenting a concentrated, high-value target for Western bombers to strike.¹⁶ They effectively implemented a “coastal inspection corridor,” routing westbound commercial tankers north around Larak Island under strict Iranian supervision.¹⁶ This allowed Tehran to dominate the waterway without initiating formal, heavy-handed military interdictions that would provide clear targets for the U.S. Navy.

6.3 Democratized Cost Asymmetry

Perhaps the most devastating element of the Mosaic Defense, and the one most thoroughly overlooked by Western military planners, is its exploitation of severe economic cost imbalances. Iran successfully democratized precision strike capabilities using low-tech innovations, creating a completely unsustainable financial dynamic for the United States and Israel.¹⁶

During the conflict, U.S. and allied forces were forced to expend highly sophisticated, immensely expensive munitions against swarms of cheap, expendable projectiles. To illustrate this disparity:

This dynamic resulted in an operational reality where “hundreds of dollars defeated millions of dollars”.¹⁶ The United States suffered a staggering financial burn rate of approximately $2 billion per day during the campaign, raising serious logistical alarms within the Pentagon regarding the rapid depletion of critical interceptor stockpiles.¹⁶ Furthermore, by effectively shutting down 90% of commercial transit in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran successfully exported the financial burden of the war globally, devastating Asian fuel supplies and the international shipping insurance industry.¹⁶ Iran did not defeat the U.S. military on the battlefield; it bypassed it entirely, forcing an economic capitulation from the West before its own capacity to resist was exhausted.

7. Geopolitical Leverage: Lebanon, the Gulf, and Strategic Wedges

Iran’s refusal to capitulate is significantly bolstered by its ability to leverage its regional assets at the negotiating table. The United States frequently fails to realize how masterfully Iran intertwines disparate geopolitical theaters to subjugate U.S. war aims and fracture allied coalitions.

7.1 The Lebanon Equation and Strategic Containment

Despite the severe casualties and degradation suffered by Hezbollah during the prolonged Israel-Lebanon conflict, Iran continues to utilize the Lebanese theater as a primary diplomatic bargaining chip and a critical element of its wartime deterrence.¹⁵ During the Pakistani-mediated negotiations leading to the Islamabad MoU, Tehran explicitly tied the status of the Lebanese conflict to any permanent peace deal with the United States.¹⁵

Tehran established a diplomatic red line: all fronts of the war, including Lebanon, must be halted before it will make any concessions regarding the demilitarization of the Strait of Hormuz or the release of its highly enriched uranium stockpiles.¹⁵ Hezbollah, despite being near collapse, serves as the ultimate shield for the Iranian regime.¹⁵ By maintaining a continuous barrage of projectile attacks against northern Israel utilizing expanding fiber-optic and first-person view (FPV) drone capabilities, Hezbollah forces the IDF to divert substantial military resources away from the Gulf theater, providing Tehran with critical strategic breathing room.¹⁵

7.2 Driving a Wedge in the U.S.-Israeli Alliance

By successfully linking the Israel-Hezbollah conflict—a theater in which the United States is not directly involved militarily—to the broader MoU regarding maritime security, Iran has brilliantly exploited the strategic friction between Washington and Jerusalem.¹⁵

The grand strategic priorities of the two allies have starkly diverged. The United States is primarily focused on preserving global macroeconomic stability by reopening the Strait of Hormuz ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.¹⁵ Israel, conversely, views the elimination of the Hezbollah threat on its northern border as an immediate existential imperative, and is reluctant to forego an opportunity to permanently eliminate Iran’s regional position.¹¹ Because the Trump administration prioritized energy markets, it demonstrated a willingness to accommodate Iran’s demands regarding a ceasefire in Lebanon, deeply angering the Israeli government.¹⁵ This dynamic effectively subjugates Israeli national security policy to U.S. economic imperatives, and Iran calculates that maintaining this alliance friction severely limits the possibility of unified, future military action against the Republic.

7.3 The Alienation and Coercion of the Arab Gulf States

The 2026 war also thoroughly exposed the vulnerabilities of the U.S. security umbrella in the Persian Gulf, leading to a profound realignment among Arab states. Prior to the conflict, several Gulf nations privately favored a decisive U.S. military strike against Iran. However, once Operation Epic Fury commenced, Gulf states hosting U.S. military bases immediately became targets for Iranian retaliatory missile and drone strikes.³¹

The inability of the U.S. military to deter these attacks or fully intercept the incursions shattered Gulf confidence in American protection.³¹ Consequently, a deep aversion to prolonged war settled over the region.

Recognizing this fear, Iranian President Pezeshkian issued a calculated public apology to the Gulf states, cleverly framing the United States as the aggressive occupying force while highlighting the Gulf’s accommodation of U.S. military interests.³¹ Iran has continued to capitalize on this Gulf anxiety post-ceasefire, threatening further strikes on civilian vessels and Gulf state infrastructure to cement its demand for permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz.¹⁴ The Gulf states are now acutely aware that they possess insufficient leverage to shape the final regional security order, and that in any future conflict, they will bear the highest economic risks.³²

7.4 Covert Retaliation and the “Mukhtar” Unit

Even as Iran negotiates diplomatic settlements, its security apparatus continues to operationalize covert offensive capabilities, proving that capitulation is not within its strategic framework. Recent Israeli intelligence reports indicate that the IRGC Quds Force has established a new covert unit named “Mukhtar.”¹² This unit is reportedly tasked with planning assassination operations against high-ranking U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, and is actively seeking cooperation with Mexican cartels to facilitate these attacks.¹² This development underscores that the regime views the MoU as a tactical pause in conventional hostilities, while simultaneously expanding its asymmetric and covert warfare capabilities globally.

8. Catalysts for Change: Can the Underlying Factors Evolve?

The intelligence assessment indicates that Iran’s current strategic posture—characterized by unyielding resistance, asymmetric warfare doctrine, and absolute IRGC dominance—is rigid and highly entrenched. However, the factors driving this posture are not entirely immune to change. Crucially, the United States must realize that if change occurs, it will not manifest through external capitulation driven by bombing campaigns; rather, it will emerge through internal systemic evolution, elite fragmentation, or state fracture.

8.1 The Consolidation and Potential Fracturing of the IRGC

The most significant internal dynamic is the total consolidation of power by the IRGC. The IRGC has transitioned from protecting the system to actively organizing it, tightening its grip over all wartime decision-making.²³ Following the death of Ali Khamenei, the regime rapidly purged moderate elements. The Israeli assassination of security chief Ali Larijani on March 17, 2026—who had been tasked with creating the regime’s continuity of government plan—further accelerated this trend. This precise strike also eliminated Gholamreza Soleimani, the commander of the paramilitary Basij Resistance Force, removing key figures and centralizing power even further into the remaining hardline core.²³ The subsequent appointment of hardliner Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr to head the Supreme National Security Council confirms the narrowing of the decision-making core.²³

However, this consolidation is inherently unstable. The succession of Mojtaba Khamenei lacks deep, organic legitimacy, particularly as he remains unseen by the public following the February strikes.²⁶ His rule is highly dependent on constantly balancing competing factions and patronage networks within the IRGC.²⁷ Should Mojtaba fail to adequately distribute the diminishing economic spoils of the state, or should the IRGC suffer a catastrophic intelligence or operational failure, the organization could fracture. A genuine shift in Iran’s strategic culture would only become possible if a pragmatic, economically focused faction within the military apparatus calculates that the total isolation caused by perpetual resistance is a greater threat to their wealth and survival than negotiated integration.

8.2 The Unsustainability of Coercive Governance

The long-term viability of the Islamic Republic is severely threatened by its own domestic policies. The decision to abandon any attempt at social reconciliation in favor of absolute coercion carries a terminal cost.²³ The economic devastation wrought by hyperinflation, currency collapse, and constant war mobilization ensures a perpetual state of latent domestic insurgency.²³

If the central control of the IRGC were to buckle under the weight of future, inevitably explosive popular uprisings, the result would not be a peaceful transition to a democratic, Western-aligned government. Rather, intelligence modeling suggests the outcome would be state fragmentation and mass civil strife.³³ A collapse of central control in Tehran would effectively open Iran’s eastern borders with Afghanistan and its western borders with Iraq.³³ This would create a contiguous, uncontrolled corridor for terrorism, organized crime, arms trafficking, and sectarian violence stretching from the Af-Pak region all the way to the Levant, profoundly destabilizing global security.³³

Currently, the overwhelming application of external military force by the United States has suppressed any latent pragmatism within the Iranian elite. The kinetic pressure of Operation Epic Fury has convinced the Iranian leadership that their physical survival is inextricably linked to maintaining their asymmetric defenses and refusing capitulation at all costs. Change is possible, but it requires the West to step back and allow the profound internal contradictions of Iran’s military dictatorship to run their course.

9. Conclusion

The United States continues to fail in its strategic objectives regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran because it views the geopolitical struggle through a lens of conventional compellence and rational economic trade-offs. The United States fails to realize that the Iranian leadership views the conflict in absolute, existential terms, where survival supersedes all economic and infrastructural costs. Western policy blind spots—specifically the overestimation of conventional military destruction, the unwitting participation in proxy supply chains, and the profound misunderstanding of Iran’s decentralized, guerrilla-style “Mosaic Defense” doctrine—have repeatedly led to strategic stalemates despite overwhelming American tactical superiority.

Iran will not capitulate because the regime, now fully organized and dominated by the IRGC, equates surrender with political annihilation and the loss of its vast domestic wealth and regional prestige. By effectively democratizing the cost of conflict with cheap drone technology and globalizing the economic pain via the interdiction of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has forged a highly resilient survival strategy. While this strategy successfully repels external regime change and fractures U.S.-allied coalitions in the Gulf and the Levant, it comes at the catastrophic cost of intense domestic repression and total economic ruin. Meaningful change in Iran’s strategic posture will never be bombed into existence; it will only arise when the internal contradictions of the IRGC’s military dictatorship and its alienated society can no longer be contained by state violence.

10. Appendix: Methodology

This intelligence assessment was compiled utilizing advanced Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) analytical frameworks. The analysis synthesizes a diverse and comprehensive array of publicly available data streams, including think-tank geopolitical reports, military doctrine evaluations (such as those analyzing Mosaic Defense), human rights organization documentation regarding domestic unrest, and international news media syndications covering the 2026 conflict and diplomatic negotiations.

The synthesis process prioritized the identification of second and third-order strategic effects, specifically examining the complex cause-and-effect relationships between Western military applications and Iranian domestic, operational, and diplomatic responses. Adversarial intent was modeled by evaluating historical behavioral patterns against current strategic capabilities, prioritizing structural realities and economic leverage points over stated diplomatic rhetoric. Data points regarding military assets, economic indicators, and force structures were cross-referenced to build a holistic assessment of state resilience and vulnerability.

Works cited

1. 2026 Iran war | Deal, Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, Map, & Conflict, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
2. Operation Epic Fury and International Law – United States Department of State, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-legal-adviser/2026/04/operation-epic-fury-and-international-law
3. 2026 Iranian supreme leader election – Wikipedia, accessed July 10, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_supreme_leader_election
4. Iran’s late supreme leader Khamenei buried in Mashhad after week-long funeral, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/irans-late-supreme-leader-khamenei-buried-after-week-long-funeral
5. Why the US Failed to Defeat Iran and What it Means for the Axis of …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://sanaacenter.org/publications/perspectives-and-analyses/27637
6. Peace Through Strength: Operation Epic Fury Crushes Iranian Threat as Ceasefire Takes Hold – The White House, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/peace-through-strength-operation-epic-fury-crushes-iranian-threat-as-ceasefire-takes-hold/
7. Operation Epic Fury Fact Sheet: April 6, 2026, accessed July 10, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2026/Apr/06/2003907108/-1/-1/1/OPERATION-EPIC-FURY-FACT-SHEET-APRIL-6-2026.PDF
8. Islamabad Memorandum – Wikipedia, accessed July 10, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad_Memorandum
9. Read the full text of Trump’s preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement to end the war – WFAE, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.wfae.org/world/2026-06-18/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-preliminary-u-s-iran-agreement-to-end-the-war
10. Trump and Iran’s President Pezeshkian sign memorandum aimed to end war – CNBC Africa, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.cnbcafrica.com/2026/trump-and-irans-president-pezeshkian-sign-memorandum-aimed-to-end-war
11. 60-Day Countdown to U.S.-Iran Cease-Fire, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/60-day-countdown-to-us-iran-cease-fire
12. Ghalibaf calls US MoU a victory for Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607060956
13. Does Trump have a Plan C for Iran? – The Irish Times, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2026/07/10/does-trump-have-a-plan-c-for-iran/
14. Iran Update Special Report, July 9, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 10, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-9-2026/
15. Lebanon as the Centrepiece of Iran’s Diplomatic Strategy, accessed July 10, 2026, https://manaramagazine.org/2026/07/lebanon-irans-diplomatic-strategy/
16. Iran Didn’t Need to Win the War. It Needed to Outlast It, accessed July 10, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/07/08/iran-didnt-need-to-win-the-war-it-needed-to-outlast-it/
17. No Conquest, No Defeat: Iran’s National Security Strategy 9780197554586, 019755458X, 9780197566916, 019756691X, 9780197566923, 0197566928 – DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed July 10, 2026, https://dokumen.pub/no-conquest-no-defeat-irans-national-security-strategy-9780197554586-019755458x-9780197566916-019756691x-9780197566923-0197566928.html
18. Geopolitical Tensions Rise as Iran Views U.S. Ceasefire Terms with Suspicion, Expert Warns of Potential Ruse – Earnings Revision Report – Market Intelligence, accessed July 10, 2026, https://denuncias.uta.edu.ec/first-dry/Geopolitical-Tensions-Rise-as-Iran-Views-US-Ceasefire-Terms-with-Suspicion-Expert-Warns-of-Potential-Ruse-24-2904
19. The shape-shifting ‘axis of resistance’ | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/shape-shifting-axis-resistance
20. Axis of Resistance or Suicide? | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed July 10, 2026, https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2026/03/an-existential-war-or-one-preparing-negotiations
21. Axis of Resistance – Wikipedia, accessed July 10, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Resistance
22. Iran at a Strategic Breaking Point – The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/iran-at-a-strategic-breaking-point/
23. Mojtaba Khamenei’s Iran and the Politics of Succession – Gulf …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://gulfif.org/mojtaba-khameneis-iran-and-the-politics-of-succession/
24. DIA Iran Military Power – Defense Intelligence Agency, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.dia.mil/portals/110/images/news/military_powers_publications/iran_military_power_lr.pdf
25. From Ideological Animosity to Strategic Rivalry: The Evolution of Iran’s Perception of Israel, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.inss.org.il/strategic_assessment/evolution-of-irans-perception-of-israel/
26. How Will Mojtaba Khamenei Rule Iran — and for How Long …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/2026/how-will-mojtaba-khamenei-rule-iran-and-for-how-long/
27. Iran’s fragmented decision-making structure – GIS Reports, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/iran-decision-making-structure/
28. journal of advanced military studies – jams – Marine Corps University, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/JAMS_SpecialIssue_StrategicCulture_web.pdf?ver=59lms7WJtPVlGLLGUTO3BA%3D%3D
29. ‘People here all seek revenge’: Crowds mass for Khamenei’s burial, banners call to kill Trump, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/people-here-all-seek-revenge-crowds-mass-for-khameneis-burial-banners-call-to-kill-trump/
30. Iran’s Path Dependent Military Doctrine – CSS/ETH Zürich, accessed July 10, 2026, https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/Olson.pdf
31. Gulf States Caught in the Crossfire of War with Iran – The Soufan Center, accessed July 10, 2026, https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2026-march-7/
32. A bad peace: the Arab Gulf states and the US–Iran memorandum of …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2026/06/a-bad-peace-the-arab-gulf-states-and-the-usiran-memorandum-of-understanding/
33. War on Iran: Tactical Success, Strategic Risk? – Egmont Institute, accessed July 10, 2026, https://egmontinstitute.be/war-on-iran-tactical-success-strategic-risk/