Beyond the battlefield.
Does military superiority lead to victory without maintaining economic power?
Abbas Akhundi / political economy researcher.
Miriam Zarian / Sociologist.
One of the fundamental questions in the study of war is why governments enter into conflicts that have high costs for the parties, when there may be a less costly solution. One of the classic answers is partial information about the capabilities, political will and possibility of the other side. In the conflict between Iran and the US, both sides are aware of some of each other's military and economic capabilities, but the main ambiguity comes back to the level of political will in practice and the willingness of the other side to bear long-term costs.
In the game of attrition, the parties know that continuing the conflict is costly, but each hopes that the other side will give up sooner rather than later. The determining variable in this situation is the cost tolerance threshold; A standard that does not necessarily correspond to the level of economic, military and diplomatic strength of countries. A country may have more material capabilities, but due to internal political constraints, public opinion pressure or election costs, it cannot afford a long war. On the other hand, a state may be more willing to take ownership due to considering the threat as an issue related to territorial integrity, political survival, or strategic independence.
For Iran, the preservation of its existence, territorial integrity, strategic independence and deterrence capability are among the essential interests. For America, it is important to prevent the realization of Iran's strategic goals, maintain international credibility and reassure its allies. The Israeli government also focuses on continuing the pressure on Iran. On the other hand, the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, despite serious political and security disagreements with Iran, have an important incentive to prevent the spread of war for several reasons, mainly the dependence of their economy on the stability of energy, trade and infrastructure.
In answer to the main question that if the continuation of the war is costly for the parties, why is there no agreement, it must be said that the scope of the agreement is formed when there is a set of conditions that benefit each of the parties more than the continuation of the war.