Iran Keeps Low Profile in Iraq's Vote, Still Pulls Strings

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani (X)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani (X)
TT

Iran Keeps Low Profile in Iraq's Vote, Still Pulls Strings

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani (X)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani (X)

Iran is allowing rival Shi’ite factions in Iraq to battle it out in a wide-open political arena ahead of the country’s November 2025 elections, adopting a hands-off approach as its regional influence wanes.

But officials and analysts say Tehran is quietly preparing a “Plan B” from a distance, wary of internal Shi’ite conflict and the potential return of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

While Iran remains largely absent from the backrooms where election alliances are typically shaped, insiders say it is still keeping close watch — ready to step in to prevent infighting among its allies, particularly as it seeks to stay out of the spotlight of US President Donald Trump’s administration in Baghdad.

Since Iraq’s Coordination Framework – a coalition of Iran-aligned Shi’ite parties – announced plans to run on separate lists, the race for Shi’ite votes has narrowed to two main figures: incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and former premier Nouri al-Maliki.

A senior leader in al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party warned the contest could spiral beyond control.

Strategists working in the campaign teams of major Shi’ite factions say Tehran’s influence has notably waned.

“For the first time, we don’t feel Iran’s pressure in forming alliances,” said one operative. “But they’re still there, in case a political storm threatens to uproot the whole process.”

This marks a turning point in Iran’s role in Iraq. Rumors circulating in Baghdad suggest Tehran is willing to make sacrifices — potentially even among its Iraqi proxies — to safeguard the broader regional order, especially as its Houthi allies in Yemen face setbacks.

At the same time, Iranian-linked groups in Iraq have conveyed to Tehran a desire to integrate further into state institutions — even if that means laying down their arms temporarily.

Tensions between Baghdad and Tehran remain muted but persistent, particularly over how Iraq’s election dynamics might impact Iran’s stalled nuclear negotiations. Yet both sides appear to agree that the current political turbulence is temporary and necessary.

On April 25, 2025, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei described the talks with the United States as “a temporary situation,” telling mourners at a ceremony in Tehran that “the dominance of hypocrisy is not eternal, but a temporary divine test.”

Earlier, Iraqi sources told Asharq al-Awsat that Iranian-backed factions in Iraq had received religious authorization from Khamenei to engage in tactical maneuvers in response to pressure from Trump’s administration.

Recent interviews conducted by Asharq al-Awsat with Iraqi politicians paint a picture of near-chaotic freedom in the political arena — likened to “freestyle wrestling” — that could again spiral into street violence.

Some fear a repeat of the September 2022 clashes, when Sadr’s supporters stormed Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone to protest their exclusion from forming a majority government.

“Iran may have stepped out of the election kitchen,” said one political figure. “But it’s still very much inside the house.”

Fluid alliances

A fluid and shifting map of alliances is taking shape in Iraq’s Shi’ite political landscape ahead of the November 2025 parliamentary elections, as Iran adopts an unusually low profile, leaving its allies to grapple with strategy and rivalry on their own.

On April 10, 2025, Asharq al-Awsat revealed that Esmail Qaani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, had quietly left behind a small team in Baghdad to oversee political files, including preparations by Shi’ite factions for the elections.

But within two weeks, Iraq’s Iran-aligned Coordination Framework announced it would run as separate lists – a familiar tactic under Iraq’s electoral law, which divides the country into multiple constituencies and often amplifies internal rivalries.

Despite the presence of Qaani’s operatives, Iranian influence appears largely absent from the coordination rooms of the Shi’ite bloc.

“Tehran is going through a delicate moment,” said a senior leader in the Islamic Dawa Party. “It’s focused on defending its own political system and legacy, which explains why its presence in Baghdad is barely visible.”

That vacuum, according to the official, has allowed greater freedom among Shi’ite parties to explore alliances independently — though not without risk. “Operating without supervision has its dangers,” they added.

Over the past two weeks, a flurry of negotiations among Shi’ite parties has yielded little consensus, with many attempts to build joint electoral lists stalling amid shifting loyalties and strategic feints.

The result is what observers describe as a “liquid map” — alliances that form and dissolve without resolution.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Mohsen al-Mandalawi drifted toward former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition before backing away. Likewise, Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Badr Organization, drew close to Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, only for the two to part ways after a brief convergence — a pattern that could easily repeat.

Hisham Dawood, a researcher at the French National Center for Scientific Research, says Iraq’s Shi’ite political community has been fracturing since 2009, when al-Maliki chose to run independently to assert his leadership, triggering tensions that were only later resolved under Iranian pressure amid the rising challenge from the secular Iraqiya bloc led by Ayad Allawi.

Today’s fragmentation of the Coordination Framework, Dawood argues, is part of a broader regional unraveling.

“The Gaza war, Hezbollah’s setbacks in Lebanon, the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria, and the intensified strikes on the Houthis in Yemen — all point to a shifting Middle East,” he said.

These changes are forcing Iran to re-evaluate its strategy in Iraq. “How does it preserve its strategic gains?” Dawood asked. A senior Dawa figure close to al-Maliki suggested Iran may be deliberately signaling non-interference, focusing instead on internal stability and recalibrating its foreign policy.

“Iran might be letting its allies clash now, confident they will come back to it in the end,” said another senior Shi’ite leader. “Only Iran knows how to tie the final knots.”

Iraq seen as Iran’s potential ‘Sacrifice’ amid regional retreat

A senior figure in Iraq’s Dawa Party believes Iran may be prepared to let Iraq become the next “sacrifice” in a string of strategic retreats, following Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen — all in a bid to protect Tehran’s political system from collapse.

“To avert a major threat, Tehran could even offer up Iraq,” the politician told Asharq al-Awsat. “But the Iranians never truly change. They will never accept pulling back from the region. They will return — it’s only a matter of time.”

Despite Iran’s subdued profile in Iraq’s pre-election landscape, many within the Shi’ite-dominated Coordination Framework remain unconvinced that Tehran has really stepped away.

“There are key interests here that require a watchful eye,” one member of the alliance said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “And Iran’s network is far from absent,” they added.

According to insiders, multiple power centers within Iran are involved in the Iraq file — including the Quds Force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iranian intelligence, the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and even individuals within his family.

“Each has its own preferences and interests when it comes to Iraq’s elections,” one official said.

Dawood underscored Iraq’s strategic weight for Tehran: “Iraq is not Syria, and not even Lebanon. It is Iran’s largest commercial market and a vital land bridge to the Mediterranean.”

Indeed, while Iran’s presence may no longer dominate Baghdad’s political scene, Qaani’s team has held discreet meetings with key Shi’ite figures to ensure “everything remains under control.”

Negotiators working on election alliances say Tehran is still involved — but from a distance.

“They have two clear priorities,” one strategist said. “Reducing the number of competing lists to avoid fragmentation, and ensuring that major armed factions are integrated into broad alliances.”

When Asharq al-Awsat asked leaders of armed groups whether they planned to participate in the elections, most said they had not yet decided — or that the vote was not their concern.

Kazem al-Fartousi, a leader in the Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada Brigades, acknowledged the tension: “We don’t readily accept participating in the elections, even if we’re convinced that they are the foundation of Iraq’s political system.”

‘The kids have grown’

Iran’s waning influence in Iraq is not only the result of a weakening “Axis of Resistance” across the region — it’s also because “the kids have grown up,” says Dawood, referring to Iraq’s powerful Iran-backed militias and factions.

“These groups now have their own patronage networks and strong local interests inside Iraq,” Dawood told Asharq al-Awsat. “They can no longer be controlled through blind loyalty to Tehran.”

Until recently, Iran-aligned factions were more responsive to pressure from Tehran, Dawood explained. “At the time, their interests aligned closely with Iran’s. These factions lacked a social base, funding, and military experience — they were reliant on Iranian backing.”

Today, many of those same groups form the core of al-Sudani’s government — “no longer operating on the sidelines, but from within,” Dawood said. The evolution presents what he calls a “structural crossroads” for Iraq’s armed groups.

“They now face a stark choice,” he said. “Either preserve their strategic gains by dismantling their armed wings and integrating their fighters into state institutions, or risk mounting regional and international threats — particularly after the political earthquakes in Syria.”

This growing assertiveness is already visible within the Coordination Framework, where Shi’ite parties are increasingly engaging in open political competition with fewer restraints. According to senior Shi’ite officials, these intra-Shi’ite rivalries continue to play out under “remote Iranian monitoring,” but with far less direct interference than in the past.

Power struggle between Maliki and Sudani

A simmering rift within Iraq’s ruling Shi’ite coalition has spilled into public view, as al-Sudani and al-Maliki clash over control of the government and the future of the Coordination Framework ahead of the 2025 elections.

In early January, Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Shi’ite “National Wisdom Movement,” broke the silence over tensions brewing inside the coalition. He pointedly reminded allies that al-Sudani, who once held a lone parliamentary seat, owes his rise to the premiership to the Coordination Framework — and should not attempt to chart his own course.

“Some coalition leaders are asking: why empower someone who now seeks to outgrow us?” Hakim said, framing al-Sudani’s independence as a betrayal.

According to a political advisor who served in previous Iraqi cabinets, the coalition is grappling with what he calls “the Prime Minister complex” — the tendency among Shi’ite leaders to resist any premier who gains too much personal influence. al-Maliki, who held office from 2006 to 2014, is among those alarmed by al-Sudani’s growing stature and regional outreach.

“Al-Sudani is replicating al-Maliki’s first term,” the advisor told Asharq al-Awsat, “leveraging a strong central state and public sector to cultivate loyalty.”

 

That strategy, however, has triggered anxiety inside the Framework. A senior figure in al-Maliki’s Dawa Party said al-Maliki is uneasy with how al-Sudani manages the cabinet and bypasses consensus mechanisms. “We are now dealing with a prime minister with unchecked authority,” he said.

The tensions reached new heights when al-Sudani traveled to Qatar and met Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa without coordinating with his political allies — moves seen by some as an attempt to position himself as a regional powerbroker.

The Dawa official warned that “landmines are planted in al-Sudani’s path,” and he will need “considerable strength” to navigate them ahead of the vote.

Iraq’s political arena is no stranger to explosive conflicts, but al-Sudani is testing these waters for the first time — and with competing agendas in his head, according to a veteran political figure. “He’s trying to manage opposing plans simultaneously,” the source said.

Despite Tehran’s reduced visibility, Iranian actors continue to wield influence, often behind the scenes. One source said Iran has pressured al-Sudani to include certain armed factions in his circle as a means of securing his position and protecting Tehran’s interests. “Iran sees al-Sudani as a difficult but valuable figure — not someone to discard easily.”

Members of al-Sudani’s Furatain Bloc declined to comment on his election strategy. However, sources close to coalition talks confirmed that al-Sudani has clashed with Badr Organization leader Hadi al-Amiri over the leadership of a joint electoral list.

According to these sources, al-Sudani demanded to head the alliance and called for a pledge supporting his bid for a second term — conditions viewed as excessive by Amiri’s camp.

Political analysts say al-Sudani is seeking to break free from the shadow of the Coordination Framework’s first-generation leadership, especially those associated with hardline regional agendas such as the “Al-Aqsa Flood” rhetoric. Yet, aware of the political landmines ahead, he is carefully courting allies who can shield him from the fallout.

“Color of the cat doesn’t matter”: Iran adapts its Iraq strategy amid shifting regional dynamics

Iran appears to have recalibrated its approach to Iraq, learning from past overreach and embracing a more pragmatic stance that reflects regional shifts and American influence, analysts and political insiders say.

Tehran’s introspection dates back to the tenure of former Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (2018–2019), a period viewed by Iraqi protesters and civil movements as “tragic.”

At the time, Iran was emboldened by what it saw as the decline of US influence in West Asia and pushed to consolidate its hold over Iraq, according to a former Iraqi government advisor.

Abdul Mahdi, a seasoned figure with roots in the Tehran-founded Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, oversaw a period during which pro-Iran factions expanded their parallel state structures. But the October 2019 protest movement disrupted that momentum, triggering a political realignment — despite the deaths of over 600 demonstrators.

“Tehran realized it had overplayed its hand,” the former advisor told Asharq al-Awsat. “Since then, it’s returned to a more measured formula.”

Dawood said Iran has spent the past two decades convincing — or compelling — Washington to share responsibility for Iraq’s political management. “This dual oversight between the US and Iran often drives the reconfigurations we see in Iraqi politics,” he said.

The former advisor likened Iran’s flexibility to Deng Xiaoping’s famous adage: “It doesn’t matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice.” Iran, he said, demonstrated this mindset during the war against ISIS, and even earlier.

He recalled how, before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, Iran issued religious rulings allowing Shi’ite factions to cooperate with the United States — despite Tehran’s official position branding it the “Great Satan.” That green light cleared the way for opposition figures to travel to Washington in preparation for the Gulf War.

On the other side of Iraq’s fractured Shi’ite landscape, secular-leaning politicians see an opportunity. One such figure, who spoke to Asharq al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, said he had visited Washington twice — before and after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.

“The next elections must reflect the transformations sweeping the region,” he said. “If they don’t, Iraq risks being left behind in the emerging Middle East order.”

Iran’s ‘plan B’: quiet calculations in Iraq ahead of 2025 elections

Iran is recalibrating its presence in Iraq, balancing public restraint with behind-the-scenes maneuvering as it braces for a pivotal election season. While Tehran’s footprint appears subdued, political sources say its operatives are quietly managing a fallback strategy — “Plan B” — from the shadows.

Two competing narratives dominate assessments of Iran’s current posture. One holds that Tehran is intentionally keeping a low profile in Baghdad to avoid provoking Washington and to demonstrate its commitment to ongoing negotiations. The other suggests Iran is overstretched at home but will inevitably return to assert itself more forcefully.

But behind the scenes, commanders aligned with Esmail Qaani, head of Iran’s Quds Force, are actively adjusting political calculations in Baghdad, according to Shi’ite political insiders.

Leaked details from high-level meetings in the Iraqi capital indicate that Tehran is seeking to secure three key objectives before the November 2025 elections: prevent the emergence of a Shi’ite faction that could challenge its influence in the future, preserve a carefully curated balance of electoral competition among Iraq’s Shi’ite parties, and keep both al-Sudani and al-Maliki politically viable — even if they remain rivals.

"Al-Sudani could be Tehran’s strategic bet if talks with Washington succeed, while al-Maliki may prove crucial if they fail," a senior figure in Iraq’s Dawa Party told Asharq al-Awsat.

Iran is currently working to keep Shi’ite political rivalries from escalating into violence, but the same Dawa official warned that “Plan B” would see Tehran decisively back one faction — particularly if the powerful Sadrist movement reenters the political fray.

Sources familiar with the thinking inside the Sadrist camp said the bloc is deliberately delaying any announcement on whether it will contest the elections, hoping to catch its rivals off-guard and reduce their ability to mobilize against it.

A business of politics

Iraqi elections increasingly resemble a high-stakes entrepreneurial summit, where political newcomers and veterans alike jockey to raise their stakes in power.

“Everyone is in it to boost their influence,” said a former Shi’ite candidate who ran in Iraq’s first two post-2003 elections. “For many newcomers, this is their shot at entering the club of political elites.”

The retired candidate, now observing from the sidelines, said Tehran is grappling with a generation of loyalists who have matured into power brokers.

“Some of them now have access to state contracts and resources. They’re strong enough to donate to the Revolutionary Guard — not the other way around.”

This complex and shifting power dynamic alarms researchers like Dawood, who warned that two decades of Shi’ite rule have delivered disappointing outcomes.

“What we’ve seen is a rentier economy entirely dependent on oil, a complete absence of economic vision, and little understanding of how to govern a complex society,” Dawood said. “Add to that a lack of market knowledge, limited regional or global connectivity, and a systemic fusion of diplomacy with ideology — plus entrenched corruption.”

As Iraq approaches its next election, Dawood sees two parallel tracks hurtling toward November 2025: the failure to build a rational state model, and intensifying regional and international pressure.

 



Sept. 11’s Legacy Endures a Quarter-Century Later

A Palestinian man holds up a poster of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (L) and wanted al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a demonstration by some 1,000 people in the West Bank town of Hebron 10 April 2004, in support of the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition. (AFP via Getty Images)
A Palestinian man holds up a poster of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (L) and wanted al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a demonstration by some 1,000 people in the West Bank town of Hebron 10 April 2004, in support of the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition. (AFP via Getty Images)
TT

Sept. 11’s Legacy Endures a Quarter-Century Later

A Palestinian man holds up a poster of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (L) and wanted al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a demonstration by some 1,000 people in the West Bank town of Hebron 10 April 2004, in support of the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition. (AFP via Getty Images)
A Palestinian man holds up a poster of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (L) and wanted al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a demonstration by some 1,000 people in the West Bank town of Hebron 10 April 2004, in support of the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition. (AFP via Getty Images)

Rarely does a day deserve to be called “the day that shook the world.” September 11, 2001, claimed that distinction the moment it happened. At first, many could scarcely believe what they were seeing on their screens. The sight of civilian aircraft exploding into symbols of American power and success in New York and Washington was shocking and deadly. A quarter-century later, there is no denying the mark that day left on the US, the Middle East and the world.

The day set in motion by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden brought down two governments: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Afghanistan may have returned to life under a diluted form of Taliban rule, but the Middle East is still paying the price for the regional imbalances created when the US military uprooted Iraq’s Baathist government.

The fall of both governments was an enormous, unintended gift to Iran, now engaged in a military conflict with the United States.

The world was not accustomed to seeing the US attacked at home. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the US base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Washington declared war on Japan the next day, and the rest is history.

On September 11, bin Laden brought the war onto American soil itself, prompting George W. Bush to launch a war against what he regarded as strongholds of terrorism.

It was no surprise that a wounded America, led by Bush, decided to topple the government of Mullah Mohammed Omar, who insisted on sheltering bin Laden and ignored calls to distance himself from the al-Qaeda leader or hand him over.

But the greater response came in the Middle East. In 2003, the region watched a US armored vehicle pull Saddam Hussein’s statue from its pedestal in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. It would later watch the hangman’s noose tighten around Saddam’s neck, alarming two men: Libya’s Moammar al-Gaddafi and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Bin Laden deliberately chose mostly Saudis for the team that attacked New York and Washington, hoping to provoke a crisis and rupture relations between Washington and Riyadh. He did not get what he wanted, but the attacks posed a test across the Muslim world.

Many voices in the US called for terrorism to be uprooted at its source. The attacks unsettled the US and the West’s relations with many countries. They also strained relations between Western governments and Arab and Muslim communities, particularly as waves of migration increased. Today, the far-right is on the rise in several parts of Europe.

Yasser Arafat was living in Gaza that day. He was troubled by the attention focused on a few Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who handed out sweets to celebrate the attacks and express their anger at American bias toward Israel.

Despite his advanced age, Arafat insisted on donating blood for those wounded in New York and Washington and went to a Gaza hospital. Some say that, in the first hours, he feared Palestinians might have been involved in carrying out the attacks.

Al-Gaddafi was also alarmed, although both he and Saddam initially imagined that the attacks would weaken the US. Al-Gaddafi asked Foreign Minister Abdulrahman Shalgham to arrange for Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to tell Bush that Libya was ready to normalize relations and open a new chapter with the US.

Bouteflika conveyed the Libyan position, but the US president told his visitor: “Tell al-Gaddafi that he must immediately surrender his nuclear program’s arsenal, or we will go and destroy it ourselves.”

Shalgham, having gauged the tense mood in America, told a meeting in Tripoli that the United States would occupy Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The Libyan leader did not hesitate to bow to Bush’s demands.

The US used Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for attacking the country. It also claimed that the Iraqi government had ties to al-Qaeda. Many did not believe the claim, particularly given the stark differences between Saddam and bin Laden and the vastly different ideologies that guided them.

The prevailing impression was that the allegation had been fabricated. In fact, no relationship existed. But Saddam made a serious error in the 1990s, while bin Laden was in Sudan, when he sent a member of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood to meet him there. The al-Qaeda leader showed no interest in cooperating with what he called the “infidel Baathist regime.”

The Iraqi government tried again, sending an intelligence official named Farouk Hijazi. A meeting with bin Laden was arranged through Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi. After the meeting, which lasted more than three hours, Hijazi returned to Iraq and advised Saddam to abandon the idea of working with bin Laden, who reportedly demanded permission to establish independent camps on Iraqi soil.

The Iraqi government dropped the idea of cooperating with bin Laden. But US intelligence agencies exploited murky threads of contact between the two sides and used them to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The US toppled the Taliban and Saddam’s government and launched a prolonged hunt for al-Qaeda leaders.

On May 2, 2011, bin Laden, hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was taken by surprise when US troops stormed his compound. America exacted revenge on the architect of the attacks on New York and Washington and disposed of his body at sea.

Osama bin Laden was gone, but al-Qaeda’s imprint exacted an enormous price from the countries of the Middle East.


What Options Does Hezbollah Have in Dealing with Israeli Escalation?

Portraits of current and former Iranian and Hezbollah leaders displayed at a rally, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, September 2, 2026. (Reuters)
Portraits of current and former Iranian and Hezbollah leaders displayed at a rally, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, September 2, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

What Options Does Hezbollah Have in Dealing with Israeli Escalation?

Portraits of current and former Iranian and Hezbollah leaders displayed at a rally, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, September 2, 2026. (Reuters)
Portraits of current and former Iranian and Hezbollah leaders displayed at a rally, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, September 2, 2026. (Reuters)

Hezbollah finds itself facing an increasingly difficult equation as Israeli escalation in South Lebanon has widened in recent days. How will the party respond to mounting Israeli strikes without being drawn into a broader confrontation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be seeking either to postpone Israel’s elections or improve his prospects in them.

At the same time, Hezbollah is facing growing pressure from its support base, which is bearing the brunt of the strikes and demanding a response capable of deterring Tel Aviv. Yet the group’s options appear largely constrained by regional developments, particularly the course of US-Iran negotiations, as well as domestic political calculations in Lebanon.

A response could benefit Netanyahu

Sources familiar with Hezbollah’s position said the Iran-backed party has largely avoided signaling whether it intends to retaliate or continue exercising restraint and adhering unilaterally to the ceasefire agreement.

They told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hezbollah is currently focusing on holding the Lebanese authorities responsible for addressing the situation, noting that the group had previously called on the government to engage in dialogue over the expanding Israeli offensive and the failure of negotiations.

The sources see no indication so far that Hezbollah may make a military response. They argue that one objective of Israel’s widening offensive is to provoke Hezbollah and Iran into retaliating and trigger a broader war, which could benefit Netanyahu electorally or help him postpone the polls.

Limited ability to confront Israel

Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, took a different view, saying Hezbollah has no options left because its military power has collapsed, particularly after its decision to hand over Ali al-Taher — “a symbol of its pride” — to Israel rather than surrender it to the Lebanese army.

“Hezbollah lacks the ability not only to fight Israel, but even to provoke it,” Khashan told Asharq Al-Awsat. “It sent two drones, and we saw the results.”

The academic believes the party’s current priority is to retain its weapons domestically after its military role in confronting Israel has effectively ended, although Hezbollah “insists on living in denial.”

He expects Israeli escalation to continue ahead of the heated elections, saying it will not be confined to Lebanon but could extend to the West Bank, Gaza and southern Syria, amid continued threats of strikes against Iran.

“As for America’s ability to pressure Israel, it appears limited,” Khashan noted, saying this means an expansion of Israeli operations into Lebanon's Bekaa Valley cannot be ruled out.

Three options for Hezbollah

Retired Lebanese army Brig. Gen. Mounir Shehadeh offered a different assessment, identifying three options available to Hezbollah.

“The first is a broad, direct military response,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. “This is the option that could give Israel the pretext it is seeking to expand its target list, take the escalation deeper into Lebanon and perhaps strike Lebanese infrastructure. It is therefore a high-cost option.”

The second is to refrain entirely from responding. That also carries a price because Israel could interpret it as evidence that it can impose new realities without paying a cost, particularly following the escalation over Ali al-Taher and the continuing strikes, he explained.

The third option is a calibrated, limited response. “In my view, this is the most logical option if the group decides to respond,” Shehadeh said.

Such action would seek to establish the principle that “aggression carries a cost” without triggering an all-out confrontation, he went on to say. Hezbollah could simultaneously maintain a policy of ambiguity by declining to claim every operation, particularly if it wanted to preserve room for political maneuver.

Shehadeh said Hezbollah may be facing a more complicated calculation: whether to respond to Israel now or wait until the direction of US-Iran negotiations becomes clearer.

Waiting for the outcome of those talks would not necessarily mean surrendering or remaining passive, he noted. Instead, Hezbollah could defer a major response while keeping the option of limited retaliation open, since a broad confrontation at this stage could benefit Israel more than the party and give it an opportunity to widen the war before the regional picture becomes clearer.

Shehadeh expects Hezbollah to avoid, in the near term, initiating a major response that could trigger an all-out war. At the same time, the group cannot indefinitely tolerate continued Israeli escalation without responding.

He stressed that the most realistic scenario is to contain the escalation, monitor developments on the ground, take into account the US-Iran diplomatic track and keep open the option of a limited, carefully calibrated response if Israel crosses certain lines.


Iran's Hormuz Leverage Wanes as US Economic Squeeze Bites

Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Iran's Hormuz Leverage Wanes as US Economic Squeeze Bites

Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)

Six months after a conflict that rattled markets and pushed the region to the brink of a wider war, the tide may be turning against Iran as Washington unleashes an unprecedented economic offensive to achieve what military force could not.

After years of surviving sanctions, Tehran is now confronting one of the harshest squeezes in the regime's history, according to Iranian insiders and regional sources cited by Reuters.

A US naval blockade and tougher sanctions are curbing oil exports, ‌restricting access to foreign currency and exposing growing strains in the economy.

The campaign has led US and regional officials to wager that mounting economic pressure can force Tehran to allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries about a fifth of global oil and LNG supplies.

Their bet rests on a simple calculation: Iran is suffering more economic damage than it is inflicting. Efforts to choke off oil exports have cut state revenues, while attempts to disrupt shipping through Hormuz have not triggered the global economic shock Tehran hoped would force Washington to compromise. Energy markets have adjusted and alternative supplies have continued to flow.

Whether the pressure will force concessions remains unclear, the regional sources said. Tehran has failed to impose the costs it hoped would break Washington's resolve but has shown little sign of abandoning demands for sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and recognition of its security role in Hormuz.

Still, a new formula for resolving the standoff is now under discussion between mediators and Iran, the sources said.

Can Tehran outlast the squeeze?

Three senior Iranian sources acknowledged that Washington's campaign is becoming increasingly difficult to withstand. The latest measures have sharply restricted Tehran's ability to access foreign currency, import goods and tap global financing networks that have helped keep the economy afloat.

Iranian leaders fear a worsening economy, marked by surging prices, weaker trade and pressure on household incomes, could reignite nationwide unrest that has repeatedly challenged Tehran.

Shortages of key imports, including fuel and wheat, are becoming an increasing concern, officials said.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the strategy as a “one-two punch” combining the blockade with “the toughest sanctions in history.”

“It is going to work in Iran and we are going to collapse this regime,” he told CNBC.

For some US, Israeli and regional officials, such ‌strains strengthen ⁠hopes that economic pressure could eventually carry political consequences inside Iran by triggering unrest, widening rifts within the leadership and weakening its grip on power.

Others remain skeptical that economic and military coercion will produce a political rupture, pointing to decades of failed efforts to destabilize the regime and Tehran's willingness to suppress dissent. They argue Iran's rulers may again prove more resilient than their adversaries expect.

Resilience test

Dennis Ross, a former US negotiator, said Washington may be interpreting Iran's economic distress as evidence of strategic success when the reality is more complicated. Tehran remains determined to demonstrate it can control Hormuz, but appears to be calibrating its use of force while keeping further escalation in reserve.

The Revolutionary Guards may believe Iran can absorb the economic pain and outlast the pressure rather than compromise, ⁠Ross said.

“The Iranians have consistently surprised us in terms of their resiliency,” he added, saying he doubted economic and military pressure alone would force a retreat. Hardliners, he said, may believe they can endure and ultimately secure what they want.

Resilience may depend as much on public tolerance as Tehran's ability to absorb economic hardship, said Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

“Of course, the economic squeeze raises the risk of public unrest, but for now, a wartime mentality appears to have a significant hold ⁠over the population,” said Ozcelik. “Foreign military intervention, civilian casualties and the perception of a wider civilization confrontation with a US-led order are sustaining a degree of 'Iran-first' patriotic support, tolerance or simply patience with the regime.”

The result is a more stubborn impasse than Washington may have anticipated. Economic pressure is deepening the pain, but Tehran's powerful Revolutionary Guards may see endurance, backed by the threat of escalation, as leverage rather than a reason to concede.

The key question is not whether Iran is ⁠hurting, but whether it is hurting enough to compromise before either side slips toward another confrontation, the regional sources said.

Ross said the clearest path to a deal may lie in the dispute over shipping fees through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could abandon any demand for a toll while retaining the right to charge for legitimate navigational, security or environmental services, he said.

Such an arrangement could give both sides a claim to victory, allowing Tehran to step back without appearing to capitulate.

“If you could announce that the Strait were reopened,” Ross said, “I think Trump would do a deal.”