US policy toward Iran in recent months appears to be driven more by long-term strategic calculations than by short-term objectives. This view was expressed by diplomat Ara Papyan.
Increasing internal pressure in Iran
According to Papyan, President Donald Trump is deliberately prolonging the process in order to gradually weaken and exhaust Iran. Initially, he argues, the focus was on damaging military capabilities, followed by pressure on the defense industry, and now the emphasis has shifted toward increasing internal dissatisfaction.
Sanctions and restrictions have led to daily losses of hundreds of millions of dollars for Iran. More critically, the country faces shortages of essential goods, including medicines, equipment, and even food supplies.
Papyan notes that the primary aim is to raise social pressure to a level where public protests may emerge. He believes this process could extend into the autumn, potentially leading to developments alongside ongoing non-public negotiations.
He also highlights the role of internal power centers, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, suggesting that their stance could shift if socio-economic pressures reach critical levels.
The real target: China
However, Papyan emphasizes that the situation must be viewed within the broader context of US–China global competition. In his assessment, US actions are not only directed at Iran but also aimed at containing China.
He points to a recent agreement between the United States and Indonesia concerning the strategically important Strait of Malacca. This route is a key artery of global trade and holds critical importance for China’s economy.
While the Strait of Hormuz is primarily linked to oil supplies, the Strait of Malacca handles around 80% of China’s imports and exports. In this sense, Papyan argues that Washington is building a “dual containment” strategy by exerting influence over both routes.
Additional factor: the future of NATO
Before any large-scale escalation, Papyan argues, the balance of power in the Middle East must be clarified. In this framework, Israel is seen as a key regional actor capable of acting as a “controller” with US backing.
He also raises the issue of NATO’s future. Discussions about creating a separate European security system, in his view, may be linked to the Turkish factor. Since removing Turkey from NATO is legally difficult, one possible scenario could involve restructuring the alliance into a new format where Ankara’s role is reduced.
Papyan concludes that the US is likely to reassess its relations with Turkey, but only after resolving the Iranian issue. This could pave the way for broader regional realignments and shifts in alliance structures.