Nournews: Remarks by Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in an interview with Politico about the necessity of applying pressure that “rural people in Iran” would deeply feel, together with Donald Trump’s positions on the desirability of regime change, present a clear picture of the strategic convergence between Democrats and Republicans. The differences lie in tactics, not in objectives.

The overarching goal is to contain Iran’s regional power and secure the interests of the Zionist regime by weakening Iran or entangling it in internal crises. From this perspective, the assumption of a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Iran constitutes a miscalculation, as any tactical retreat can lead to a new strategic advance.

Military Posture as a Bargaining Lever
The announcement of deploying a carrier strike group to the region and the media narrative about readiness for a weeks-long war are less indicators of a definitive decision to engage in conflict and more instruments of psychological pressure on the eve of negotiations. Trump has also acknowledged the difficulty of reaching an agreement and implicitly emphasized the need to “instill fear” to break the deadlock.

This pattern shows that, under current conditions, the military option plays a complementary role to economic pressure. The aim is to push Iran toward accepting demands such as zero enrichment and expanding negotiations to missile and regional issues. Within this framework, the display of military power serves as an instrumental tool to strengthen the U.S. hand at the negotiating table, rather than necessarily to initiate war.

Engineering Economic and Social Pressure
On the other hand, the strategy of “paralyzing the economy” through sanctions, restricting access to foreign currency, and creating dollar shortages is being pursued as the core axis of pressure. Acknowledgments by U.S. officials regarding the engineering of currency shortages to weaken the rial indicate a shift of the main battlefield from the military arena to the livelihood front.

The focus on non-central regions and peripheral layers reflects an effort to expand the scope of social discontent. Accordingly, the main war is defined as an economic and media battle—one aimed at reducing social resilience and transforming livelihood pressure into a political and security crisis. In this design, the economy becomes a platform for destabilization.

The Necessity of Multi-Layered Resistance
In the face of such hybrid warfare, the response must also be hybrid. Maintaining military deterrence, activating diplomacy, and strengthening national cohesion constitute the three main pillars of this posture. Enhancing social resilience through trust-building, avoiding unsupported economic shocks, and strengthening social capital is of strategic importance.

At the same time, developing economic diplomacy with a focus on independent actors such as BRICS and deepening cooperation with neighbors can neutralize part of the external pressure. Public awareness of the nature of hybrid warfare will also prevent falling into psychological operations. Within this framework, effective resistance is shaped not only on the military battlefield, but also through smart management of the economy and society.