In response to the cancellation of Trump's planned strikes, an international relations analyst in Tehran remarked that pauses occurring between periods of hostility and warfare are typically intended for regrouping—or, in military parlance, "reloading." This relative lull and interval should by no means be interpreted as the end of the crisis or a subsiding of tensions; rather, both sides are preparing and equipping themselves to enter a new, more complex phase of confrontation. Both parties have sought to make the most of this breathing space to expand their operational and combat capabilities.

Mohsen Jalilvand went on to highlight a significant point regarding the US political calendar, adding: "We must also take into account the key variable that the US Congress is entering its month-long summer recess this very week. This absence of lawmakers gives Trump a completely free hand to make aggressive decisions, away from congressional oversight."

This international affairs expert stated: In effect, Trump has orchestrated the framework of confrontation in such a way as to both circumvent cumbersome legal obstacles and pull the trigger on a new attack whenever he chooses. The unprecedented intensification of sanctions, the effort to forge a global consensus against the Islamic Republic, and other similar measures clearly indicate that Washington intends to subject Tehran to debilitating pressure within an entirely new arena of conflict.

In outlining the Trump administration's strategic shift, he emphasized that Washington’s current strategy no longer relies on a single instrument. Field data from recent months regarding the package of measures employed by the U.S.—ranging from the imposition of crippling economic and political pressure to keeping the threat of military action on the table—indicates that the White House national security team seeks to simultaneously inflict the highest level of security, economic, and diplomatic costs on Tehran. Dismissing recent U.S. moves as merely verbal threats would be a miscalculation, as these actions could well be components of a broader puzzle and a multi-layered strategy.

Mohsen Jalilvand added that the White House is striving—while maintaining its hegemony and military deterrence—to employ complementary levers such as sanctions, regional coalition-building, and diplomatic pressure in order to minimize Tehran’s range of choices and response options. If sustained, this strategy—characterized by "aggressive crisis management" that stops short of a costly, full-scale war—will dim the prospects of a return to the negotiating table and significantly heighten the likelihood of entering a volatile new phase of confrontation.

He stated: The experience of regional conflicts in recent years has clearly demonstrated that critical infrastructure—ranging from energy supply networks to transportation arteries—has become one of the primary targets of military campaigns; this is because disrupting these key sectors not only inflicts astronomical economic losses but also directly impacts decision-making and crisis management processes.

Applying this perspective to the scenario of confrontation between Tehran and Washington, this professor of international relations emphasized that if the standoff enters a new operational phase, the pattern of potential strikes will certainly differ structurally from the past. The prospect of the United States targeting energy infrastructure is a highly serious matter with a very high probability of occurrence. However, we must pay close attention to the nuances of such attacks; the operational approach would not necessarily involve bombing our power generation plants, but rather focus on destroying or severely damaging "electricity distribution infrastructure." Furthermore, they would extensively include Iran's strategic transportation routes in their target list.

This strategic affairs analyst further added that Washington’s pursuit of such a scenario is not merely intended to physically destroy a few facilities; rather, the ultimate goal is to trigger a cascading disruption—effectively paralyzing the networks for logistics, energy distribution, and public transportation—thereby exponentially expanding the operation's impact. Consequently, he believes that the likely formula for any future military confrontation would focus less on symbolic strikes and more on systematically crippling the infrastructure upon which the country’s daily operations and very survival depend.

Describing what might unfold should the situation deteriorate further, this foreign policy expert stated: "The ultimate aim of planning large-scale attacks on critical energy infrastructure and transportation networks is to execute a completely paralyzing operation, thereby disrupting the country's decision-making capacity and resolve. In effect, the U.S. strategy is to widen the battlefront and extend the 'Forward Edge of the Battle Area'—known in military terminology as FEBA—directly into the country's own territory."

He added: Washington is devising a hybrid scenario for crisis management that leverages pressure on the country's vital arteries. Ground forces might even enter the country, but the primary objective is to deliver a blow severe enough to cause widespread disruption and confusion within the national command center. Such an event will certainly occur soon, and the prospect of negotiations has been completely removed from the agenda.