After a month of war, Iran appears to have gained strategic leverage despite sustained U.S. and Israeli attacks, according to a new Economist leader published on March 26. The article argues that President Donald Trump now faces a narrowing choice: deepen the conflict or move toward serious talks with Tehran.
The Economist says the past week captured the volatility of the crisis. Trump first threatened punitive strikes on Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure, then stepped back after referring to possible peace proposals, while the Pentagon later announced the deployment of elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, a signal that escalation may still be on the table. Despite those shifts, the magazine argues that Iran’s leadership has shown little sign of backing down.
Although Iran has suffered major military and political losses, including damage to its air defenses, navy and missile-launching capacity, the regime remains intact. The Economist contends that this survival alone amounts to a form of victory, especially because internal opposition has not turned the war into a domestic political crisis for the authorities. Instead, it says hardliners and the Revolutionary Guards have tightened their control while dissent has gone quiet under external attack.
A central pillar of Iran’s leverage, according to the article, is the Strait of Hormuz. The Economist’s reporting says Iran has effectively demonstrated its ability to threaten the waterway, through which a major share of global oil and gas supplies passes, and that reopening it by force would be extremely difficult. Related Economist coverage on energy markets has described war-related shipping attacks, higher freight costs and oil prices near the $100-a-barrel level in recent days.
The magazine also argues that Iran still retains important regional cards. It points to risks involving the Houthis in Yemen, Iran-aligned Shia groups in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, warning that the wider conflict could revive Tehran’s influence through allied actors even after earlier setbacks. In Israel and the Gulf, meanwhile, the article says fears are rising that the war may leave a more dangerous and more embittered Iran in place rather than eliminate the threat.
For Trump, The Economist’s judgment is stark. Its recent coverage says military escalation could include attacks on more infrastructure or even limited territorial seizures, but it warns that such moves may bring high political and military costs without delivering a decisive outcome. The publication concludes that negotiations, backed by a real ceasefire, may be the least bad option, even though mistrust on both sides would make diplomacy difficult from the outset.