The Wall Street Journal: Iranian Hardliners Have No Intention to End the War
The Wall Street Journal reports that Iranian hardline leaders have no intention of ending the war.
After a meeting in Tehran, the hardliners developed different plans, believing that the relevant agreements are merely a means for the U.S. and Israel to alleviate global economic pressure and buy time.
The leadership quickly took action, attacking ships to strengthen control over the Strait of Hormuz and expanding the battlefield to the Red Sea.
Arab intelligence officials have found evidence that Iranian hardliners are preparing to escalate the war and increase costs for the U.S.
Analysts say that there is a widespread belief in Iran that "the main war has not yet begun," and the current situation is a gradual escalation using a "salami-slicing" tactic.
On the market mechanism level, expectations of the war's continuation are pushing up energy and shipping risk premiums, with funds flowing into safe-haven assets and alternative energy channels. Concerns about supply disruptions related to Hormuz are rising, putting pressure on trade reliant on the strait and benefiting geopolitical hedging tools.
Supplementary data shows that Iran still retains the capability to threaten U.S. bases and Gulf energy infrastructure.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Iranian hardliners have continued to dominate decision-making in recent conflicts, and historical behavior shows their priority is to maintain confrontation through asymmetric means and proxy networks rather than seeking a quick ceasefire.
In terms of capital pathways, the leadership has chosen to expand the battlefield and increase costs, motivated by the desire to avoid suffering large-scale strikes again, strategically using sustained pressure to gain negotiation leverage and internal unity.
Similar cases can be seen in the prolonged nature of past Middle Eastern proxy conflicts; the current confrontation between Iran and the U.S. and Israel is transitioning from limited skirmishes to broader attrition.
Structural judgment indicates a change in regulation: because hardliners control the pace of escalation, the mechanism makes a ceasefire dependent on internal power balance rather than external pressure, forcing the market to consider the continuation of war as the baseline scenario, with pricing power shifting from diplomatic mediation to military and intelligence assessments.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Hardliners view ceasefire as a trap.
- Gradual escalation aims to increase opponent costs.
- The narrative that the main war has not yet begun dominates decision-making.