At a moment when different readings of the Iran-US talks are emerging, it looks like in Tehran the discussion is already moving beyond the negotiations themselves.
Officials, observers and media close to the security establishment are increasingly debating the post “failed talks” scenario.

- An interesting point comes from Nournews, which describes the confrontation as entering a new phase. Its analysis is worth reading carefully (which I did), not because it necessarily represents a formal government position, but because it offers an indication of how the situation is being interpreted in Tehran.

- The basic argument is that pressure on Iran is evolving from direct military confrontation towards something broader: an attempt to restrict Iran’s connections with the outside world. The maritime dimension came first. Pressure on Iranian shipping and the confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz have already turned the Persian Gulf into a central arena. But Nournews argues that another layer is emerging: an “indirect air blockade.”

- This does not mean closing Iranian airspace. Airlines depend on airports, fuel, ground handling, insurance and financial services. By threatening sanctions against companies providing these services, Washington can make Iranian international connections increasingly difficult without formally imposing an air blockade.

- Iranian observers point to disruptions of connections with several regional destinations, while some routes towards Turkey and China remain operational. In their reading, pressure is moving from sea to air. If maritime access becomes contested and air connections more difficult, Iran’s land borders acquire greater strategic importance. raising the possibility that the next stage could involve overland connections.

- Iran shares borders with seven countries and sits across transport corridors connecting the Persian Gulf, Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia and Russia. Iranian analysts argue that trying to isolate Iran is one thing. Reducing its role as a geographical corridor is something else, because the costs would affect neighbouring countries, transport networks and commercial interests as well.

- This may explain why the platform talks about a “war of resilience.” The question is not simply which side has greater military or economic power, but who can absorb pressure for longer while transferring part of the cost to the region, the same logic visible in the Iranian approach to Hormuz.

- If negotiations collapse, Tehran appears to expect a more complex phase. The focus may increasingly revolve around access: to the sea, international air routes, neighbouring markets and, later, land corridors.
That would also change the role of Iran’s neighbours. Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, the Caucasus and Central Asian states would no longer be peripheral observers. Their borders, infrastructure and commercial relationships would become part of the equation.

- Whether Iran can withstand such a contest is another question. Its economy remains vulnerable and the costs would be substantial. But Tehran’s calculation appears to be that those costs cannot be contained indefinitely inside Iran.

- And that, perhaps, in the Iranian reading, is the real meaning of the next phase: not breaking the blockade, but making it increasingly expensive for everyone involved.

#Iran