No major diplomacy. No major escalation. No Iran headlines dominating American politics before the midterms.
Parsi argues that Washington’s new sanctions may therefore be deliberately limited: enough pressure to look aggressive, but not enough to provoke the Iranian retaliation the administration knows could follow.
The problem is that this only postpones the underlying conflict.
Iran still refuses to return to an agreement that leaves Lebanon out, while Israel continues pushing deeper into Lebanon and testing American red lines.
And Parsi believes one red line matters in particular: Beirut.
If Israel strikes Beirut, he expects Iran to respond directly, especially as Tehran accumulates more reasons to counter-escalate.
Then there is the blockade.
Parsi argues that as long as Washington maintains a naval blockade on Iran, the war has not actually ended.
Without a deal to lift it, the conflict will keep oscillating between diplomacy, economic warfare and renewed military confrontation.
Which is why he is not ruling out another U.S.-Iran war after the midterms.
Not because it makes strategic sense.
But because, as the last round already demonstrated, wars do not always begin because someone has found a convincing path to victory.
Sometimes they begin because nobody found a way out.
@tparsi
