Iran Holds Firm Amidst US-Israel War Escalation and Crucial Elections

As regional powers intensify diplomatic efforts to avert further escalation in the eight-month United States-Israel war on Iran, Tehran has shown no indication of compromising on its core demands. China’s announcement on Tuesday of dispatching an envoy to regional countries underscores the growing urgency for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, which has significantly impacted global energy markets and created regional instability.

Senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye – signatories to the Mecca defence pact in August – met with Iranian officials on Monday. They committed to continued discussions on regional “peace and security.” However, Iran appears resolute in its stance, particularly given its significant influence over maritime trade in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments prior to the war.

“Iran’s priority is not simply to secure another ceasefire, but to end the war permanently and establish deterrence so that the cycle of military attacks by the US and Israel does not keep repeating itself,” stated Negar Mortazavi, editor and host of The Iran Podcast, to Al Jazeera. Tehran insists on sanctions relief, the cessation of the US naval blockade on its Gulf ports, and assurances against renewed attacks in exchange for facilitating the resumption of normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The US, conversely, seeks concessions from Iran, including regarding its nuclear program, before a final peace settlement can be negotiated.

Experts suggest that Iran’s current strategic calculations are influenced by deep-seated distrust of Washington, which has conducted strikes against Iran multiple times since June 2025 while negotiations were ongoing. Additionally, Tehran believes that sustained economic pressure could yield more favorable US concessions. The upcoming elections in Israel and the US are also a significant factor in Iran’s decision-making.

Lack of Trust and Past Failures

At the core of Iran’s position is a conviction that previous diplomatic endeavors have failed to provide adequate protection against renewed US and Israeli aggression. The initial strikes of the war by the US and Israel occurred on February 28, coinciding with peace talks in Oman. Last year, Israel waged a 12-day war on Iran in June, with US participation.

Pakistan and Qatar facilitated a memorandum of understanding in June of this year, aiming to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, end the US blockade of Iranian ports, and establish terms for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. However, this arrangement collapsed as both sides resumed hostilities, leading to sustained US attacks on Iran in July, followed by retaliatory strikes from Iran on US military assets and energy infrastructure in neighboring Gulf countries and Jordan.

Sina Toossi, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy (CIP), noted that the failure of this arrangement has hardened Tehran’s stance. “Iran believes previous negotiations and ceasefire arrangements failed to protect it from renewed military attacks, and it is therefore seeking more tangible and durable guarantees,” he told Al Jazeera.

US President Donald Trump has maintained ambiguity regarding his future actions. “My question is, do I make a deal with them or do I finish them off?” Trump remarked to reporters on Sunday. He had previously indicated that attacks on Iran would be postponed until after the US midterms on November 3.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stated last week that Iran’s armed forces are prepared for any new attacks, including potential invasions of neighboring countries and strikes on bases used in US military operations, as part of a new “offensive” strategy in its conflict with the US. He also emphasized that Iran would only reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commence peace talks once Washington takes concrete steps to rebuild trust, including meeting Iran’s conditions: suspending sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, and providing concrete assurances against future strikes.

US Midterms and Israeli Elections Loom Large

The upcoming US midterm elections, with all 435 House of Representatives seats and 35 Senate seats contested, will determine congressional control for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. The war, increasingly unpopular among Americans, is becoming a significant domestic issue. A Reuters/Ipsos poll earlier this month revealed that only 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the conflict, his lowest rating during his presidency.

With narrow Republican majorities in Congress (53-47 in the Senate and 218-214 in the House), the war’s impact on energy prices, particularly the doubling of diesel costs, is exacerbating inflation concerns and burdening farmers and small businesses, further dominating the election campaign.

Some reports suggest Iranian officials may be intentionally prolonging negotiations to prevent Trump from securing a political victory before the elections. A Republican defeat could limit Trump’s options, especially if Democrats gain control of Congress and increase scrutiny of the administration’s war conduct.

“Tehran wants to teach a lesson to Washington, including future American presidents, that attacking Iran comes with a high price,” analyst Mortazavi commented. “Its deterrence strategy is multilayered, aimed at imposing military, economic and political costs that extend well beyond the battlefield.”

Israel’s election on Tuesday, preceding the US midterms, adds another layer to Iran’s calculations. A potential defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could complicate joint US-Iran attacks, as he is seen as a key proponent of Trump’s decision to greenlight the war. While some anticipate that an opposition victory, possibly led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, might ease regional tensions, a change in leadership does not guarantee a softer Israeli stance towards Iran. Eisenkot, also a former military chief, has expressed concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence.

Nevertheless, Mortazavi noted that while Iranian officials are closely monitoring the political ramifications of the war for both Washington and Tel Aviv, they recognize the heightened risk of escalation post-elections, making a lasting diplomatic settlement even more critical.

Iran’s Leverage in the Strait of Hormuz

Iran’s control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz remains its most potent bargaining tool. Before the war began on February 28, the waterway facilitated approximately one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies, granting Tehran considerable leverage over global oil markets. Data from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy indicates that October saw the highest number of attacks on commercial shipping near Hormuz.

Brent crude prices surged above $117 a barrel last week, a significant increase from the pre-war level of around $72, following Iranian attacks on tankers. Shipping traffic through the strait has yet to return to pre-war levels.

Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, believes Iran is strategically using this economic pressure as part of an endurance contest with Washington. “They know they are in an attritional race with the US to see who breaks first,” Beauchamp told Al Jazeera. “For now, however, they are happy to keep attacking shipping to push prices higher.”

Uncertainty Clouds Diplomatic Efforts

The latest diplomatic initiative highlights growing regional concerns about the potential consequences of further conflict. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye agreed on Monday to continue discussions on regional peace and security amid fears of renewed escalation. These talks in Tehran occur amidst heightened regional tensions, following recent attacks on Saudi Arabia by Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi rebels.

Pakistan and Turkiye maintain strong strategic ties with Saudi Arabia and are committed to supporting Riyadh militarily under the recent Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. Political analyst Rami Khouri, a nonresident fellow at the Arab Center in Washington DC, outlined the meeting’s objectives, stating, “The most immediate goal: to de-escalate and to try to return to the diplomatic process, to have a permanent ceasefire, and then define the issues and address them with much stronger mediation, supported by these three countries [Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye] and maybe others.” Khouri suggested these talks could signal a shift towards a regional security order with greater influence from Middle Eastern and other regional nations, moving away from Washington’s dominance.

Meanwhile, CIP’s Toossi observed that regional powers increasingly recognize their security is intertwined with Iran’s, despite existing differences. “It will be difficult to stabilise Yemen while the wider US-Iran confrontation continues, just as it will be difficult to reach a durable settlement with Iran while regional military escalation remains a constant threat,” he stated.

Ultimately, Iran’s distrust of Washington remains the primary impediment, according to Iran Podcast host Mortazavi. “After two wars, Tehran is deeply sceptical of American commitments and wants concrete guarantees that any agreement will not simply become another temporary pause before the next attack,” she explained. “Iran is willing to negotiate and has already demonstrated flexibility by presenting a proposal to end the war. But Tehran believes it retains significant leverage, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, and will not surrender that leverage under military or economic pressure. The goal is a permanent end to the war, not another temporary ceasefire that leaves the underlying conflict unresolved.”