The 60-day ceasefire established under the Iran-US memorandum of understanding concluded on Monday without an extension, sparking widespread concern that the ongoing conflict is entering a more volatile phase. As US President Donald Trump continues to demand a total surrender from Tehran, the Iranian leadership has signaled a definitive shift toward a more aggressive military strategy.
Rather than prioritizing the defense of its own territory, Iranian officials have indicated a readiness to adopt a fully offensive posture. This approach potentially involves expanding strikes against American assets and regional allies through both domestic forces and proxy groups. An Iranian official recently told Reuters that the country’s entities must prepare to escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and the wider region, noting that Tehran is prepared to take difficult actions.
Political analysts observe that this strategic pivot is already manifesting in both practical operations and institutional changes. Mohammed Eslami, a political scientist at the European University Institute, asserts that this shift is firmly established. Institutionally, this is reflected in Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s recent appointments of senior military figures to key security positions that had remained vacant since the conflict began.
Among these appointments is former IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaee, who was named as Khamenei’s representative on the Supreme National Security Council. While some Western observers view this as a promotion of hardliners, it follows the tenure of Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a former IRGC general described by The Economist as an apparatchik who pushed for increased IRGC authority in response to US and Israeli actions. Eslami views these personnel changes as clear indicators of an institutional commitment to a prolonged war.
The practical evidence of this shift is also apparent. While Iran has refrained from direct conventional warfare, it has engaged in multiple attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf and conducted several drone operations over the past week. Esam Alahmadi, a researcher at Selcuk University, argues that Tehran is leveraging its established regional networks to shift the theater of war away from Iranian soil and into the surrounding environment, spanning from the Gulf states to Yemen.
The core objective of this strategy is not necessarily a military defeat of the United States, but rather to increase the political, economic, and military costs of a sustained conflict. By dispersing US forces across the Gulf, Iraq, the Red Sea, and Israel, Iran aims to force the Trump administration to dedicate significant resources to securing maritime corridors—such as the routes from Hormuz to Bab el-Mandeb, which account for roughly 30 to 35 percent of global trade.
Financial markets have already begun to react to these risks. Following the expiration of the ceasefire and Tehran’s announcement of its new posture, global stock markets declined, government bond yields rose, and oil prices surged to their highest levels in several weeks. Analysts suggest that Tehran is betting on a war of attrition, believing that the US lacks the capacity or the political will to sustain a long-term fight.
This strategy also targets the depletion of US military resources. The conflict has significantly consumed American missile stocks, including Patriot and THAAD systems, with replacements expected to take considerable time. Eslami notes that Tehran hopes this prolonged pressure will force Washington to make difficult choices regarding the deployment of strategic munitions that might otherwise be reserved for potential future confrontations with China.
The potential for escalation remains high. If an Iranian attack results in significant US casualties or the sinking of a naval vessel, the American response could be severe, potentially targeting Iran’s critical military, economic, and oil infrastructure. Alahmadi warns that the more the conflict expands, the greater the risk that Iran may cross a threshold that makes further containment impossible for Washington.
Tehran’s strategy also aims to reduce the US military presence in the region. Iranian officials believe that the US is already beginning to withdraw, citing recent evacuations. However, the wider the conflict spreads, the greater the danger that regional allies could trigger military responses that exceed Tehran’s original calculations.
Concerns are also mounting regarding the strain on US personnel. American media reports have highlighted anxiety among the families of troops deployed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has faced operational challenges during its extended deployment. Ultimately, Iran’s leadership appears convinced that the US is not capable of fighting a protracted war, and they are positioning themselves to exploit that perceived vulnerability. The report also notes that rezaee, who commanded the IRGC against Iraqi forces during the 10-year-long military conflict, advocated the continuation of the war against Baghdad. The report also notes that instead, Tehran is expected to widen the conflict, forcing Washington to defend multiple fronts simultaneously. The report also notes that a Yemeni political analyst and a PhD researcher in sociology at Selcuk University, argues that Tehran is likely to rely on the tools it has spent decades developing: missiles, drones and its network of regional allies, esam Alahmadi. The report also notes that drones, and network of allies, Tehran can force the United States to deal with multiple fronts simultaneously,” Alahmadi tells, through its missiles. The report also notes that signalling that maintaining military and commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz comes at an increasingly high cost, that strategy could also include attacks on US naval vessels operating near Iranian waters. The report also notes that as well as international maritime navigation, become vulnerable, Iran can attempt to move from being the party receiving strikes to being the party capable of imposing corresponding costs,” Alahmadi says, if US forces and interests. The report also notes that iran doesn’t need to destroy US naval power entirely. The report also notes that unsettling many Americans at home, even a single damaging attack on a US vessel in the region could spread widely.
