From a regime survival perspective, an external conflict can buy time domestically, increase leverage internationally and reassert relevance regionally.

By Hezy Laing

Iran’s worsening economic crisis may be making another confrontation with Israel more likely, not less.

Tehran is facing extraordinary financial pressure as sanctions, declining oil revenues and trade restrictions squeeze the resources available to sustain the Islamic Republic and its military and regional networks.

New U.S. and EU sanctions, combined with far tougher enforcement on ship‑to‑ship transfers and shadow‑fleet tankers, have sharply constricted Iran’s ability to move crude.

The crackdown on ghost registries, falsified AIS signals and front‑company insurers pushed exports from well over a million barrels per day to a fraction of that, triggering a foreign‑currency crunch inside Iran.

With oil revenue collapsing, the rial slid to record lows, inflation surged and basic goods became dramatically more expensive.

These pressures fed directly into the broader economic crisis, where currency instability and shrinking state income amplified already severe price shocks.

The economic numbers underline the pressure.

According to the IMF, Iranian oil exports have reportedly fallen from about 1.7 million barrels per day a year ago to roughly 260,000, while according to the World Bank, inflation has approached 70% and food prices have more than doubled.

Rather than simply forcing Iran to retreat, however, growing desperation could encourage its leaders to demonstrate that they can still strike back.

When a government is under deep financial/economic pressure, a foreign confrontation can be used to shift focus, rally support, and gain leverage.

From a regime survival perspective, an external conflict can buy time domestically, increase leverage internationally and reassert relevance regionally.

But it could also invite a harsh Israeli response including attacks on oil, nuclear, and IRGC infrastructure and lead to domestic backlash if war leads to more shortages, casualties, and economic collapse

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), argues that the danger should be taken seriously.

Speaking to JNS, Brodsky said Israeli and American assessments already anticipate an Iranian response to the mounting economic pressure.

He described the campaign as “economic strangulation” and said Iran could “flail” through rockets, drones and missiles as its options narrow.

If Tehran believes its economic position is deteriorating rapidly, doing nothing may appear more dangerous to the regime than taking another military gamble.

Other analysts see a similar danger.

Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch in Israeli military intelligence and now a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, has warned that the current situation is unstable.

He said Iran is unlikely to accept indefinitely a situation in which its oil exports are blocked while Gulf states continue exporting, and argued that continued economic pressure could push Tehran toward renewed military action.

Journalist and regional analyst Kim Ghattas has likewise described Iran as being in a “very tight spot,” warning that a cornered Tehran could still lash out and cause serious damage across the region.

Her assessment highlights the central paradox: Iran may be weakened, but weakness does not necessarily mean restraint.

With Iran’s economic room shrinking, its leaders face a difficult choice between absorbing further pressure or escalating.

For Israel, that makes the coming months particularly dangerous: a weaker Iran may have fewer resources, but a cornered Iran could have greater incentives to use what remains.