Tehran does not measure the likelihood of war solely by what is said in Washington, but also by what does not happen. Statements by US President Donald Trump that he was not convinced by any proposal regarding Iran and that the decision not to launch a military strike was taken personally have reinforced a grey political condition hovering over the country. A standing threat exists, yet without immediate military translation, alongside sustained pressure with no explicit horizon for settlement.
This ambiguity coincides with a noticeable decline in the pace of protests inside Iran, following weeks of arrests and security escalation. The internal scene has returned to a state of cautious calm.
However, this calm does not signal the disappearance of anxiety. Rather, concern has shifted from the streets to a deeper level, where the central question now revolves around whether this internal retreat will be read in Washington as an opportunity to de-escalate or as additional space to raise the ceiling of pressure.
Charged Waiting
In this context, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi articulated the essence of Tehran’s official approach in media statements, affirming that Iran is prepared for all options, including the military option if imposed upon it. At the same time, he expressed hope that Washington would choose what he described as the wise option.
The Iranian foreign minister noted that ideas proposed between the two sides remain under consideration, while warning of “parties” seeking to drag the United States into war in the service of Israeli interests. This signalled that escalation, from Tehran’s perspective, is not managed solely from within the White House.
This discourse, which combines readiness with leaving a narrow window open for diplomacy, reflects a careful Iranian management of the condition of neither peace nor war, not as a transient phase, but as a long-term political reality.
In official Tehran, this condition is administered through a logic of preparedness and containment, while avoiding granting the American threat weight beyond its practical limits.
Beyond official circles, the condition manifests as a heavy sense of waiting, reflected in public mood, in the calculations of political and economic elites, and in a growing sense that the possibility of war, even if unrealised, has become a permanent element of daily thinking.
Thus, no war transforms into a policy, no peace into a lived reality, and the Iranian capital remains suspended between a threat that does not materialise and a war that does not occur, yet imposes its presence on both decision-making and the street.
Neither War nor Peace
Fouad Izadi, Professor of American Studies at the University of Tehran, argues that one of the central objectives of both the United States and Israel is to keep Iran in a state of neither war nor peace, due to the direct economic effects this condition produces.
In remarks to Al Jazeera Net, Izadi explained that this situation itself functions as a tool of economic pressure, pushing economic actors towards hesitation and the suspension of activity while awaiting clarity over the fate of any potential military strike. This, he noted, negatively affects investment and production.
He added that this approach complements US sanctions, alongside other tools employed to inflict damage on the Iranian economy.
Izadi linked this context to the unrest witnessed in Iran over the past two weeks, considering that one of its primary objectives was economic in nature. He explained that the protests initially began with livelihood-related motivations, but later developed into widespread acts of vandalism, including the burning of shops and the forced closure of businesses owned by individuals who did not comply with strike calls. This was compounded by internet shutdowns that caused significant damage to sectors dependent on the digital economy.
Izadi concluded that these combined factors, sanctions, internal unrest, and uncertainty associated with military escalation, constitute multiple instruments of pressure on the Iranian economy. Together, he said, they fall within what can be described as an economic war waged by Washington and Tel Aviv against Iran.
Rejection of Intervention
Former Iranian diplomat Mohammad Mehdi Shariatmadar, for his part, affirmed that Iran’s elite circles are witnessing divergence in views and approaches regarding the current escalation. Nonetheless, he stressed the existence of a clear consensus rejecting any foreign intervention, regardless of its source.
In his remarks to Al Jazeera Net, Shariatmadar indicated that threats issued by President Donald Trump are no longer taken in Iran in the traditional sense. He explained that Trump’s behavioural pattern has come to provoke a degree of ridicule, not only in the Iranian context, but among other states as well, due to what he described as volatility and inconsistency in positions.
At the same time, the former diplomat emphasised that this rhetorical dismissal does not imply a lack of readiness. He affirmed the existence of full and continuous preparedness at both the military and security levels, alongside political and governmental readiness that includes planning for various potential scenarios. This extends to securing food supplies and essential needs for the country in the event Iran is subjected to an attack.
Shariatmadar concluded that these preparations are managed on a permanent and coordinated basis across different institutions. However, he also noted that official discourse in Tehran does not base its positions on American threats, despite practical readiness to confront any possible development.
