Washington's dual-track tactics stringent test of Iran and itself

The US president's declaration on social media on Sunday that Iran's Kharg Island was being "blown to smithereens" — accompanied by an AI-generated video — was hyperbolic, unsubstantiated and strategically revealing. Kharg Island, which handled 90 percent of Iran's oil exports before the war, remains intact. But by striking nearby Larak Island — the first known US military action against Iranian territory since late July — Washington was sending a warning shot across Tehran's bow. The target is not Larak itself, but Kharg: the jugular of Iran's energy trade.

A US official said US forces attacked two Iranian launchers on Larak after observing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps preparing to sow sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz. But the real target was 660 kilometers to the east, Kharg. Strike the smaller Larak today; threaten the key one tomorrow. It was a classic case of "knock on the mountain to scare the tiger".

Iran, predictably, did not flinch. Its IRGC responded with ballistic missiles aimed at two US bases in Jordan, a strike that Jordanian forces said they largely intercepted. Yet it is clear that the conflict is evolving into a regional confrontation with no clear off-ramp.

The US administration faces tremendous domestic pressure. With the midterm elections looming, the White House appears to be treating the US' conflict with Iran as a political pressure valve.

After the "Operation Economic Outcast: Total Isolation of the Iranian Regime" was released last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent vowed to unveil new secondary sanctions weekly, starting with banks, and warned that any entity facilitating Iranian money laundering "will be removed from the US dollar system". In what Bessent called "the single greatest financial offensive ever marshalled against an adversary", the operation targets digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping, with the aim of severing "every economic lifeline sustaining the regime".

Although the conflict with Iran has cost the US over $100 million per day on average, and eroded Washington's core promise of "affordability" and "avoiding protracted wars", it is a classic diversionary tactic: when you cannot fix the economy at home, turn public attention abroad. The more the US administration struggles with inflation, party infighting and legal setbacks — roughly one-third of the US leader's executive orders have faced court challenges, as a Washington Post analysis noted — the louder it beats the drum of Iranian menace.

Yet maximum pressure is a double-edged sword. Targeting shipping and aviation will choke global trade routes; targeting digital assets and gold will fragment financial systems; imposing secondary penalties on third-party entities will strain alliances and invite retaliation.

Moreover, sanctions take time to produce tangible effects, and the US midterm elections are only weeks away. While US sanctions have certainly taken a toll on Iran's economy — its exports and imports have dropped by 25 to 35 percent in recent months — Tehran is unlikely to buckle easily. After all, decades of enduring US sanctions have made Iran highly resilient to external pressure.

The US-Venezuela oil deal offers a cautionary tale. According to the deal, the US obtains up to a 25 percent price discount on Venezuelan crude, while Caracas receives only narrow sanctions relief, yet must still export 100,000 barrels per day — ceding leverage without guaranteed investment or full market access. That is a reminder to Tehran of what "submission" looks like.

The US-Iran contest has entered its middle game. In this phase, brute military force and sanctions blitzkrieg matter less than each side's ability to manage its own domestic front. The country that better addresses its internal fractures — economic, political and social — will have a more solid foundation to gain the upper hand.

Neither side can afford a protracted conflict. But neither can afford to appear weak. That is the tragedy of this moment. The US administration's dual-track approach of military brinkmanship and economic warfare is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of panic. And panic, in international affairs, rarely ends well.