Could nuclear weapons be a salvation for Iran?

For more than three decades, relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey have been defined by a phrase that carries both political and emotional meaning: “One nation, two states.” The slogan symbolizes a strategic partnership based on a shared language, history and security interests.

The emergence of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s supreme leader has further heightened tensions in an already expanding regional conflict. His first aggressive statement on Thursday signaled that Tehran appears to be preparing for a prolonged confrontation rather than a rapid de-escalation.

The widening conflict between Iran and a U.S.–Israeli coalition is showing signs of turning into a prolonged regional war, as initial expectations in Washington that air strikes would quickly weaken Tehran’s leadership appear increasingly unrealistic.

Wars often begin with maximalist slogans and end with far more prosaic calculations: whether the minimum set of objectives has been achieved, whether the costs remain acceptable, and whether the campaign itself is beginning to threaten the interests of those who initiated it. Within this logic, a scenario in which the war against Iran is not carried through to the complete collapse of the regime, but instead transitions by the end of March into a pause, a cease-fire, or a limited de-escalation arrangement appears increasingly plausible. Such an outcome would not necessarily be presented as a capitulation by Washington. Rather, it could be framed as the moment when the main objectives have largely been achieved and when further escalation would begin to work against the interests of the United States itself.