On the eve of the current war between the Islamic Republic on one side and the US-Israel tandem on the other we speculated about six scenarios that might take shape.

 

It now seems that the scenario chosen by Tehran - or what is left of its leadership - is Samson Option aimed at a long war designed to spread the conflict as until the temple collapses on everyone’s head.

 

The choice of that option was based on several assumptions. The first was that President Donald Trump has no patience for getting involved in mazelike situations and that if short and quick success seems unavailable, he would move to another headline-catching endeavor.

 

Last June, Trump germinated US involvement in Israel’s war against Iran in just 37 hours by declaring a ceasefire that neither Israel nor Iran wanted. Trump’s sensational Caracas coup lasted only five hours.

 

The thinking in Tehran was that Israel, too, is nurtured on the narrative of the Six Day War or the day-long joyride to Beirut in 1982. Because of its lack of geopolitical depth Israel, cannot bear the cost of a long war that would disrupt economic activity as people are rushed to shelters.

 

Israel’s long engagement in Gaza was possible because after the first phase of the conflict, Hamas was unable to attack Israeli territory. Thus, Hamas became an anvil which the Israeli hammer could batter at will for as long as it wished.

 

The second assumption was that neither the US nor Israel enjoyed a privilege that the Islamic Republic leadership enjoys: ignoring public opinion at home.

 

In Vietnam, after the Tet Offensive, the US had won the war in military terms but ended up losing because of widespread opposition at home and across world public opinion. In 2009, Israel could have eliminated Hamas in Gaza but stopped in midstream because of opposition at home and pressure from Washington.

 

Tehran’s calculation is that Israel and the US cannot long tolerate a large number of casualties while the Islamic Republic could do so with its weird doctrine of martyrdom.

 

On Wednesday, Ali Larijani, the man put in charge of national security by the late Ali Khamenei claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) forces had killed over 500 Americans in the first three days of the war. If that is true, which I don’t think is, at that rate US losses could top 20,000 in just three or four weeks.

 

The third assumption is that both Trump and Netanyahu have difficult elections ahead and once they see they cannot win a clear-cut victory in sight, they would seek an end to the war, thus allowing the regime to survive.

 

The fourth assumption in Tehran was that by attacking most countries in the region, plus Cyprus, it could send shockwaves beyond the limited sphere of the conflict. That in turn would persuade many nations to join the “end the war now” chorus, while oil price rises, stock exchanges get jittery and regional countries dedicated to seeking peace and prosperity panic.

 

Closing the Strait of Hormuz, although more of a gesticulation than a serious military move, could also contribute to international unease.

 

Finally, Tehran assumed that it enjoys the advantage of having a single war goal: survival. In 1917 Lenin, an unlikely model for Khamenei, told his Politburo that the aim should be “to survive at any cost even for just 100 days.”

 

In contrast US and Israel seem to have different, though not necessarily contradicting, goals. The US has talked of reducing Iran’s nuclear program, curbing its missile production and, in a less serious tone, regime change while constantly claiming it is open to diplomacy. Trump has even said that he knows Iranian personalities who could assume power and make a deal with Washington.

 

Last June, Trump tweeted “Unconditional Surrender” addressed at Tehran but sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to seek indirect talks with Iranians.

 

In contrast, Israel seems to be aiming at completely disarming Iran under any leadership and if possible, getting involved in sectarian wars on a no-tomorrow basis. That would shut Iran out of any equation in the Middle East for a long time, making Israel a centerpiece in any new status quo.

 

Finally, Tehran counts on what it believes is an absence of a serious alternative to the present regime with a chunk of the opposition in exile prepared to quietly swallow the regime’s survival in order to prevent a restoration of constitutional monarchy. And that would force the US, if not Israel, to end up taking to the post-Khamenei leadership in Tehran.

 

Will the Samson Option work for Tehran. My answer is a tentative no.

 

The key reason it won’t work is that it was conceived by Khamenei on the assumption that he would still be around to fine tune it and if necessary, play his trump card, which is to offer to surrender in exchange for survival. With Khamenei gone and no one capable of filling the vacuum, we would have the Samson option without Samson.

 

Then there is the fact that Iran’s ramshackle economy cannot sustain a long war. Even if oil exports to China and some imports reach Iran via Türkiye, the new leadership is bound to face massive shortages of essential goods, including foodstuff and pharmaceutical items.

 

More importantly, perhaps the factional feuds that have been the bane of the regime since its inception are likely to intensify. Some wearers of military caps already dream of doing a Bonaparte Iranian style. And some turbaned heads see themselves as the regime’s new “Imam.” Hours after Ali-Reza Aarafi was put in front of TV cameras as a possible “Supreme Guide”, other mullahs started moaning about him not being a descendant of Imam Ali because he wears a white turban as opposed to the black turban of the “shurafa”.

 

Ahmad Khatami, a deputy speaker of the Assembly of Experts poured cold water on Aarafi’s ambitions by saying the 88-man group hasn’t chosen a new guide.

 

At the same time figures around former President Hassan Rouhani are musing about ending the war by meeting Trump’s key demands. But that too is easier said than done. Can the US make peace with any figure from a regime that it has labeled “terrorist” and an imminent threat to American national security?

 

Who knows? What we know is that in the meantime people will die.