Economic Coercion and Strategic Stalemate: Reassessing U.S. Policy Toward Iran

Exclusive – Aldonya News

By: Imane Dernaika Kamali*

*University Instructor – Political Researcher*

The U.S.-Iranian confrontation has shifted decisively in recent months. Washington has moved away from direct efforts to degrade Tehran’s missile arsenal and conventional capabilities toward a strategy of economic attrition. The objective is to target Iran’s vital lifeline by disrupting oil tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and strangling its maritime trade. The underlying assumption is that comprehensive pressure will compel the Iranian regime to capitulate and return to negotiations on American terms. Yet this shift has created a central dilemma: whether economic strangulation can break Tehran’s resolve, and at what cost to the United States and the global system.

The initial impact on Iran has been severe. According to reporting in the _Financial Times_ and _The Wall Street Journal_, Iranian oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz have declined by nearly 90 percent. Imports have fallen by approximately 35 percent, and total exports have dropped by close to 75 percent. This represents a loss of roughly 65 percent of Iran’s export revenues compared to pre-sanctions levels. To reinforce this isolation, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has threatened secondary sanctions against any state or firm conducting business with Iran, including banks and companies in Egypt, the UAE, and Turkey accused of ties to entities linked to the Revolutionary Guards.

However, the consequences of this strategy have not been confined to Iran. They have reverberated through the U.S. economy and global energy markets. Oil prices have remained near $100 per barrel. In the United States, gasoline prices have risen to about $4.15 per gallon, an increase of roughly 30 percent from pre-escalation levels. Diesel, the backbone of transport, agriculture, and construction, has reached a record $5.85 per gallon. These increases have intensified inflationary pressures and generated significant domestic political costs.

Militarily, the burden has also grown. Published reports indicate that within the first month of confrontation, the United States expended more than 850 Tomahawk missiles and over 1,000 interceptors from Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems. This rate of expenditure has raised serious concerns in Congress and the Pentagon about the sustainability of U.S. munitions stockpiles, particularly given the possibility of future contingencies involving major powers such as Russia and China.

Faced with these dynamics, the U.S. strategic community is divided. One camp, represented by former officials such as James Jeffrey, argues that time favors Washington. Sustained pressure, in this view, will exhaust Iran before it exhausts American endurance. The opposing camp contends that Tehran has embraced a strategy of endurance and cost imposition. Rather than capitulate, Iran is likely to escalate by widening the scope of disruption to shipping and U.S. regional interests. This assessment is reinforced by _Financial Times_ reporting on covert Russian military and technical assistance to Iran, including the deployment of engineers to improve the accuracy and range of its long-range missiles.

In conclusion, the current trajectory does not point to victory for either side. It points instead to mutual attrition and strategic stalemate. The American wager that economic pressure would produce political capitulation has not materialized. At the same time, Iranian resilience has not translated into diplomatic leverage. The central question is therefore no longer which side will surrender first, but which side can bear the costs of continuation longer. The answer will determine not only Iran’s future trajectory, but also the extent to which the United States can continue to impose its preferences in the Middle East without incurring costs that exceed its strategic gains.