The conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel is increasingly being shaped by two sharply different strategic assumptions about what “victory” means, according to Middle East scholar Mehran Kamrava of Georgetown University in Qatar.

Kamrava, who was interviewed by Euro News yesterday, said the crisis escalated after diplomatic efforts between Tehran and Washington faltered, while political calculations in both capitals pushed the situation toward confrontation.

“A couple of things went wrong diplomatically,” Kamrava said, pointing to tensions between the administration of Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership, as well as the strategic calculations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to Kamrava, the Israeli leadership had long treated the earlier phase of the confrontation as unfinished business, while negotiations between Tehran and Washington failed to bridge fundamental differences. Washington sought direct talks and a swift resolution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear activities, while Tehran insisted on negotiating on its own terms and at a slower pace.

That mismatch, Kamrava suggested, combined with what he described as the unpredictability of decision-making in the Trump White House, ultimately contributed to the escalation now unfolding.

Kamrava said the United States and Israel appear to have entered the confrontation expecting a rapid and decisive outcome, where large-scale strikes and the ‘showy’ destruction of military assets would quickly weaken Iran.

“But Iran has a very different assumption about the war, ” he said.

For Tehran, he explained, the ability to withstand pressure and continue functioning politically and militarily may itself constitute victory. Rather than seeking a swift battlefield decision, Iran’s strategy may be to prolong the conflict and increase the costs for its adversaries over time.

“If they drag it out,” Kamrava said, Iran could aim to grind down American and Israeli resolve while gradually increasing the pressure on them.

“So, what we see are two very different approaches to the war,” Kamrava said. “At this point, the question is: who is going to blink first?”

The conflict has also unfolded against the backdrop of uncertainty within Iran’s political leadership.

Following reports of the death of Iran’s long-time Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, attention has turned to the role of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has largely disappeared from public view.

Kamrava argued, however, that Iran’s political system was deliberately designed to maintain operational continuity even during leadership crises.

Military decisions, he said, continue to be made by institutional structures, including the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the regular armed forces.

Even the death of senior figures such as Ali Larijani, who had headed Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, would not necessarily disrupt decision-making.

“The system continues to function,” Kamrava said, noting that operational authority in wartime is distributed across several institutions rather than concentrated solely in one individual.

Meanwhile, the conflict is beginning to reverberate inside the United States. The decision by the Trump administration to launch strikes against Tehran in support of Israel’s efforts to weaken the Islamic Republic has exposed divisions within the president’s political base.

The resignation of former top counter-terrorism official Joe Kent has added to those tensions, highlighting growing debate among Trump’s supporters about the risks of deeper American involvement in another Middle Eastern conflict.

For now, analysts say the trajectory of the conflict remains uncertain.

If the United States and Israel continue to pursue rapid military gains while Iran focuses on endurance and gradual escalation, the confrontation could evolve into a prolonged geopolitical contest rather than a short war.

In that scenario, Kamrava suggested, the outcome may hinge less on battlefield victories and more on political will.

Ultimately, Kamrava said, the defining question may be simple: which side blinks first.

By Sanath Nanayakkare