LONDON - Two factors arising from miscalculation may prompt the U.S. to attack Iran. The first miscalculation is that Iran is in its weakest state, as claimed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his address to Congress.

The collective West does not comprehend the ideological strength of the defenders of the Iranian sovereignty. America was under the illusion that the January protests would spread and the strike would come as a final blow to eliminate the Islamic Republic system.

The other miscalculation is that Iran will not use all that it has in its power for fear of increased reprisal by the U.S., drawing a conclusion based on the 12-day war in June 2025. They are also under the illusion that Iran usually responds to a ceasefire whenever the Americans want it. They are mistaken in their assessment of these two issues.

President Pezeshkian declared his consent to the negotiations under two conditions: that they be in line with international law and not accompanied by threats.

It is very clear that the Israeli occupation entity is pressing the American side to wage a war against Iran.  

Iran needs to adopt a comprehensive defensive formula with an offensive character, especially as the U.S. has deployed warships, carrier strike groups, different types of fighter jets, etc.

From a military perspective, preparations must be made to deal with the American regional buildup before they reach full offensive capability. The point at which they would be capable of attacking must be deterred. At this stage, an Iranian attack would be purely defensive.

If the nuclear negotiations fail, the level of threat to national security is very high and signals an impending attack. One option is to strike before they get ready if negotiations fail. The price paid in that situation would be far less than waiting for the attack to be carried out.

Preparation and limited engagements may at least distract and thwart the attack.

In that situation, they may change calculations, delay the attack, or even cancel it. They may inflict greater losses on the opponent before full readiness, thereby altering the course of events. An openly declared threat to national security must be met with an openly declared decision to preserve national security.

This may include pursuing certain targets before the enemy’s decision to attack is finalized. There must be a response to a siege by disrupting the siege.  Responding to a siege with a decisive and firm stance against it.

There is always an avenue for a form of parity that harms the opponent. As for any weak stance under the title of defense, may prove the worst option.