Iran readies for war

Trump stumbles

Jan 29, 2026

Will Schryver, who I mentioned before, as simply the best military analyst in the business, has linked to Shivan Mahendrarajah on X. Schryver also posts on Substack but to keep up with him you really have to go to X.

I am always impressed by him. And so is Alastair Crooke— who quotes him extensively in a recent article for Strategic Culture which is a must-read

It seems that in the wake of the ‘coup’ failure – yet still wanting to be pleasing to an exigent President – the Pentagon has come around to justifying and explaining the failed coup saying — in General Keane’s words –“We [have] had to bring in all this firepower”, (because they initially had thought they could manage with less).
So, now we have the narrative that “the U.S. has now deployed more forces to the Middle East than it did in the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined” – which US military expert Will Schryver derides as “absolute ridiculous nonsense”.
Schryver notes: “I have yet to see a military buildup in the region that would permit anything remotely approximating a ‘decisive’ strike against the Iranian military and its government”.

I agree. An attack on Iran would be irrational and self-destructive.

On the other hand, “irrational an self-destructive” seems to define Donald Trump, who apparently has a hard time separating the “success” of his snatch and grab attack on Caracas ,apparently testing the new US EA-37B Compass Call II EW on the Chavistas mostly against decade old AD systems, whose operators were on leave or asleep.

Iran has the most up to date Chinese and Russian systems — long-range air defense missiles, lasers, radars, and EW designed to handle such threats. Technologically, they are a generation ahead

Yes, the Iranians may have trouble integrating their systems and training operators— but they were still good enough to take out the Starlink communications the US and Israel were using to foment local fifth columnists.

Even if the US won — it would likely be at some cost, in lives and economics. I am not sure the public wants to pay.

Schryver refers us to Shivan Mahendrarajah, whose article bears study and thought.

Shivan Mahendrarajah

@S_Mahendrarajah

Khamenei’s Choice

Like “Sophie’s Choice,” Ayatollah Khamenei’s choice is coerced and unpalatable: war or surrender (not war or peace). Surrender will not bring peace; conflicts with US/ISR will continue & worsen Iran’s socio-economic conditions.

Iran wins by (a) not losing; (b) defeating US/ISR.

Negotiations

Negotiations are futile:

(1) Trump’s demands are maximalist and unreasonable: terminate U-235 enrichment, turnover 440kg of 60% HEU, reduce ballistic missile ranges & stockpiles. If Iran accedes to the demands, it will be tantamount to surrender, leaving Iran defenseless and subject to relentless bombing by ISR à la post-Assad Syria; and like with Libya and Syria, lead to civil war and fragmentation;

(2) a “new nuclear deal” is pointless unless approved by the US Senate (Const., Art. II, § 2) and UN. Otherwise, any POTUS can renege—as Trump did with JCPOA (2018). Iran, btw, received zero benefits from JCPOA.

The best deal for Iran is one that permanently lifts sanctions and threats, which ISR/US are unwilling to offer—just yet—but will offer if compelled to negotiate for a peace that guarantees Israel’s security (btw, Iran offered security guarantees—and a lot more—22½ years ago but Bush-Cheney rejected the offer: “we don’t negotiate with evil”).

Blockade

A blockade may be imposed on Fri., 30 Jan ’26. Firstly, blockade, as a matter of int’l law—not that int’l law matters anymore—is casus belli. Iran has the right to respond militarily (as Israel did in ’67 when the Tiran Straits were blocked). Secondly, a blockade of Iran is unenforceable; thirdly, as Tehran has repeatedly said, “if we can’t sell oil, nobody will sell oil.”

Precision Strikes/Limited Strikes

US/ISR floated ideas of “limited strikes” or “precision strikes,” probably against the political and military leaderships. Aya K is 87; he’s assuredly made peace with Allah and designated his successor. Iranian generals are accustomed to suffering hefty losses in combat (see . Sepah & Artesh have succession protocols that will be implemented—as happened 13 June ’25. (NB: names of select military post-holders and subordinates, and Aya K’s successor, are intentionally concealed.)

Tehran no longer views US/ISR strikes as a “manageable threat” (e.g., Twelve-Day War). Tehran has determined that it is confronting an “existential threat.” Tehran will respond accordingly.

Existential Threat

The June war, the recent western-sponsored riots, and non-stop hostile rhetoric about “regime change” and “new leadership in Iran,” have forced Tehran to shift gears.

It understands, finally, that the west does not seek accommodation and coexistence with Iran; the west seeks Iran’s destruction and partition along ethno-linguistic lines.

If 47-years of western sanctions, state-sponsored violence (by MeK, Monarchists, Baluchis, Kurds, Jaysh al-Adl, etc.), and US/ISR-led wars are not settled permanently, Iran will continue to be hollowed out—like with “termites,” as aptly noted by s.o. on X. Iran will not tolerate three more years of Trump’s belligerence, irrationality, and economic warfare.

If Tehran does not “sort out” US/ISR in the immediate future, the Islamic Republic of Iran will collapse under the crushing weight of sanctions, currency devaluation, inflation, socio-economic unrest, and system’s internal contradictions. Iran needs a complete solution to its US/ISR problem.

Thoughts

How does Iran secure a “complete solution”?

Not by engaging in duplicitous negotiations with Trump or by unilateral surrender.

Either US/ISR initiates war or Iran initiates war. There is military logic to preemptive war by Iran but Tehran is apparently reluctant to initiate—but could do so with a “false flag.”

Justification is not for the west, which is irredeemably hostile towards the Islamic Republic and the Shia, but to boost Iranian national unity and placate Tehran’s allies in the Global South.

US is incapable of waging a sustained, high-intensity war 1,000s of kilometers from home: “amateurs talk about strategy and tactics.

Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare.” US lacks the wherewithal to sustain a long, hot war; but Iran has planned and prepared for this. Iran has “home field” advantage; whereas US is dependent on regional bases that could disappear overnight.

I will not delve into war scenarios, but as noted earlier, Iran’s most powerful tool is its ability to wage economic warfare, to wit, jack up oil & gas prices and crash US/UK/EU equity markets and the dollar (see If, hypothetically, Iran destroys Azerbaijan’s oil & gas infrastructure, global markets will be roiled, gold & silver will surge, dollar fall farther (down 10% already).

“Gee, Donald,” tweets Tehran, “Azerbaijan was just our appetizer. Next on the menu is UAE, then Qatar…unless you sue for peace.”

Who will fire the first shot?