Iran Has Shifted U.S. Calculations Through Its “Regional War Doctrine”

According to Taghrib News Agency(TNA), Abdul Latif Nazari, Deputy Minister of Economy in the Taliban government, wrote an analysis highlighting the strategic importance of West Asia.
He argued that the United States, in order to maintain global dominance, must control key regions such as West Asia—a region rich in oil and gas and home to several vital maritime chokepoints linking Asia, Europe, and Africa.
Nazari wrote that any power seeking global influence must inevitably secure dominance over the Middle East, as the region not only provides essential resources but also serves as a tool for pressuring rivals.
Iran: A Key Actor with Significant Geopolitical Weight
Nazari pointed to Iran’s elevated regional position, noting that Tehran’s domestic advancements and its integration into emerging power blocs—such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization—have made it a major regional player.
He argued that this rise is one of the reasons behind intensified U.S. and Western pressure on Iran.
According to him, Iran is no longer merely a regional state but is becoming an independent power within the emerging global order—something that has raised concerns in Washington.
The High Cost of War with Iran for the United States
Nazari wrote that the U.S. is currently unable to initiate a war with Iran, describing such a conflict as “a severe and deadly test” for Washington. He argued that the outcome of such a war could reshape the global order to America’s disadvantage.
Referring to Donald Trump’s decision‑making style, he said the U.S. president retreats only when the cost of action outweighs its potential gains, citing examples such as the Greenland crisis, European warnings about Russia, and the tariff war with China.
Iran’s “Regional War Doctrine” and Washington’s Doubts
According to Nazari, Iran’s newly articulated security doctrine—centered on the idea of a “regional war”—has effectively neutralized U.S. threats.
He wrote that Tehran has clearly stated that any U.S. attack would escalate into a region‑wide conflict, describing this stance as “a modern deterrent threat” rooted in defensive realism and grounded in real military capabilities.
Regional Opposition to War and Efforts to Prevent Escalation
Nazari added that most regional governments oppose a new war and are working to dissuade Washington from military action, fearing that any conflict would engulf the entire region.
He also pointed to increased internal cohesion in Iran following U.S. threats, as well as China and Russia’s readiness to conduct joint military exercises with Tehran—developments he sees as signs of shifting regional power balances.
The Resistance Axis and Threats to U.S. Interests
Nazari emphasized that the regional “resistance axis” has declared that any U.S. attack on Iran would result in American interests across the region coming under fire.
He described this as a “reassessment of Iran’s regional power” and evidence of Tehran’s ability to prolong and expand any conflict.
According to him, the U.S. prefers to pressure Iran through the “shadow of war” rather than through actual military confrontation.
Iran Has Changed the “All Options on the Table” Game
Nazari argued that Iran’s deterrent capabilities have disrupted Washington’s traditional strategy.
He wrote that today, Iran also has its own options on the table—options that include an unlimited conflict with a scope and conclusion determined by Tehran, potentially targeting all U.S. bases in the region with drones and ballistic missiles.
This, he said, is a major factor preventing Washington from initiating military action.
Negotiation as a U.S. Tactic to Mask Strategic Doubts
Nazari concluded that the U.S. desire to begin a new round of negotiations with Iran reflects serious hesitation within the White House regarding military escalation.
According to him, Washington uses negotiations to buy time, ease public pressure, and justify its reluctance to take military action.