Image Source, EPA/Shutterstock
Following ten days of aggressive exchanges over control of the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, Iranian leaders now appear to be considering three possible courses of action.
However, none of these options guarantees a clear victory.
What exactly are these options?
Three Options Facing Iran
The first option is to accept many of Washington’s demands. This would include stopping attacks on commercial vessels, ensuring free and secure navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, significantly reducing or abandoning its highly enriched uranium stockpiles, and allowing international nuclear regulators to conduct inspections.
In return, Tehran seeks the removal of the US naval blockade of its ports, easing of economic sanctions, and guarantees against future attacks.
While this step may be less costly economically and militarily, it could prove politically to be the costliest option.
If the Strait is reopened without granting Iran a formal role in its management, Tehran would lose a potent leverage — a capability some analysts consider more influential than Iran’s missile program, regional proxies, or even its nuclear activities.
For the first time, Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt the global economy by showing how attacks on its own territory can have immediate worldwide impact.
Hardliners may interpret accepting strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — which Tehran long insisted was its legal right — as capitulation to US military pressure.
This could, in turn, increase pressure on Iran’s missile program and its relationships with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia groups in Iraq, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The second option is to escalate the conflict further.
Iran could increase attacks targeting US military bases in the region, commercial ships, and critical infrastructure of Gulf Arab states. This could drive up fuel prices and cause widespread disruption, potentially pressuring the US and its allies to negotiate.
However, such a course carries enormous military risks.
A major strike inflicting serious damage on personnel and infrastructure could invite neighboring countries to join the war, forcing Iran to face a broad international coalition.
The third option is to maintain the current instability, preserving pressure by keeping the Strait’s maritime traffic and energy markets affected without allowing the US to fully reengage in war.
This strategy aligns with the traditional thinking of the Iranian Islamic Republic.
Iran does not need to defeat its more powerful adversaries outright; being able to withstand confrontation and protect its existence is regarded as success. Yet, economic sanctions, war damages, and rising inflation continue to place sustained pressure domestically.
Over time, contradictions may arise, because if Iran uses the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon of leverage, other countries will begin seeking alternative export routes for energy and goods.
The Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has acknowledged that the real significance of the Strait lies in increasing the number of ships passing through, rather than decreasing it.
As long as the channel remains insecure, the world will seek alternative routes, which could isolate Iran geopolitically.
Who Is Making the Decision?
Uncertainty within Iran’s decision-making process presents another complex dimension to the dispute.
During Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s rule, political figures, religious institutions, and the Revolutionary Guard engaged in disputes that the Supreme Leader traditionally resolved using long-established methods. However, after a prolonged conflict and under new leadership of Mojtaba Khamenei, the balance of power is unclear.
President Masoud Pezeshkian and his diplomats may be inclined to agree to an accord to alleviate economic pressures and restore stability.
On the other hand, hardliners, unelected powerful bodies, and conservative media worry that a significant deal would undermine the ideological foundation of the Islamic Republic and alienate their support base.
Perhaps the most critical question concerns the role of the armed forces, especially the Revolutionary Guards.
Iran’s missile program, regional alliances, and the Hormuz Strait strategy fall under the Guards’ influence. However, their degree of influence over decisions to escalate conflict or engage in negotiations remains uncertain.
These three options will have varying impacts on Iran’s ruling system.
Realists may place hope in a negotiated settlement; hardliners may prefer enduring prolonged conflict; and some military strategists might believe that escalation strengthens Iran’s bargaining position.
Therefore, not only which path Iran chooses but also who holds the decision-making power is vitally important.
What Do Iranians Say?
The leadership’s understanding of endurance often differs from the people’s experience.
Iran and the US had signed a memorandum to halt military actions, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and conclude the war within 60 days. However, just three weeks later, attacks on Iranian vessels and a US airstrike followed by President Donald Trump’s declaration to “end” the ceasefire reignited hostilities.
An Iranian woman told BBC Persian she was very saddened by the resumption of fighting.
She had hoped the agreement would provide time to defuse the conflict and restore stability but now fears the death toll and destruction of infrastructure.
She blamed hardliners’ destructive policies and opposition groups abroad for encouraging the war.
Another woman from Tehran reported that her foreign trade company shut down, and despite having a PhD and 17 years of experience, she has been unemployed for four months.
“No one is hiring because the future is uncertain,” she said.
She has reduced her outings due to annual inflation, frequent power and water cuts, increasing theft, and nightly gunfire in the city.
These personal experiences do not necessarily predict a clear political outcome. Foreign aggression fuels Iranian outrage, but it also reveals the limitations imposed by ongoing uncertainty and hardship.
Trump’s options include expanding the war, continuing military and economic pressure, or accepting a deal for a strictly monitored non-military nuclear program.
None of these choices present a clear path to victory.
The cycle of attacks, mediation, and temporary ceasefires suggests this conflict could continue for months. The critical question remains how long the Iranian leadership can maintain the strategic leverage of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing full-scale war and internal unrest while obstructing the development of alternative maritime routes.
You can watch videos and access further news on our YouTube channel. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Our radio program in Nepali is also available Monday to Friday at 8:45 PM.
