This week, under East Eight Time, the multi-faceted game around potential war and ceasefire plans between the US and Iran has simultaneously unfolded. On one hand, Iran has proudly announced that it has mobilized over 1 million combat personnel, declaring through the media, "Building a wall of flesh and blood with millions of people"; on the other hand, US Secretary of State Rubio publicly emphasized, "There is no need for a single American soldier to set foot on Iranian soil to achieve strategic goals", responding to the tense situation with long-range strikes and non-contact operations. With the attack on Mubarak Steel Company, the flames of war have spread from traditional frontlines to the industrial hinterland. Iran has further added six Israeli steel mills and five industrial facilities in Gulf countries to its list of revenge targets, raising concerns in the outside world about the volatility of steel, oil, and other commodities as well as regional economies. Alongside the high-profile tough stance, the US side has also submitted a 15-point peace agreement framework through Pakistan, planting the seeds for subsequent diplomatic shifts amid the tension of confrontation and attempts at ceasefire behind the scenes.

Million Mobilization Against Zero Ground Troops: The Clash of Two War Imaginings

Iran has actively disclosed the figure of "mobilizing over 1 million combat personnel" and through the Revolutionary Guard stated it is "ready to build a wall of flesh and blood with millions of people," which is both a domestic war mobilization and a signal of its ability to bear costs in a show of force externally. For Iran, emphasizing a "wall of flesh and blood" serves to indicate that even in the face of intense airstrikes and sanctions, it has the capability to deploy massive manpower in ground war, raising the political and moral costs for any invaders.

In stark contrast is Rubio's public proclamation that "there is no need for a US soldier to step on Iranian soil". This statement locks the US envisioned form of warfare into a combination of long-range strikes, air supremacy, cyber warfare, electronic warfare, and proxy forces, attempting to balance military pressure with domestic political tolerances. For the US, avoiding the direct involvement of ground forces is not only a response to the "scarred memories" of nearly two decades of Middle Eastern wars but also a realistic choice under the pressures of budgeting and election cycles.

In terms of war expectations, there exists a significant disparity in the time imaginations of both sides. According to briefings, Rubio informed the G7 of an expectation to "end the war within weeks", while the consensus among G7 members focused on a quick engagement plan ranging from 2 to 4 weeks. This kind of planning relies on high-density, short-cycle strikes, aiming to weaken key capabilities and force the opponent to accept negotiations in a limited time. In contrast, Iran projects a narrative of total mobilization and "long-term confrontation," signaling its view that the war is a long-term attrition and preparing to exhaust its opponent's political will and financial endurance over time.

When the design of "quick engagements within weeks" encounters the psychological expectation of "the ability to fight for a long time," strategic deterrence may evolve into a misjudgment amplifier. One side believes that through concentrated strikes and escalated sanctions, it can force the opponent to concede in the short term; the other side believes that as long as it withstands the initial weeks of offense, the narrative of the battlefield will start to reverse. It is in this mismatch in expectations that both parties continuously escalate their threats of "unbearable consequences" with words, yet push the red lines of escalation into ambiguous territories, where any misreading or accidental trigger could quickly breach the originally conceived controllable boundaries.

The Steel Mills and Gulf Industrial Zones Have Become the New Frontlines in the Crosshairs

The attack on Mubarak Steel Company is regarded as a key turning point in the conflict, marking a shift from military entities to the industrial hinterland. Previously, attacks were more focused on military facilities, proxy armed bases, and limited energy nodes, whereas the recent attacks on steel companies have brought the war directly into the core layers of the national industrial system. For the regional populace, this means that the flames of war no longer resonate solely as distant frontline gunfire but may infiltrate daily life through employment, prices, and supply chain disturbances.

In the subsequent threats of revenge, Iran has included six Israeli steel mills and five industrial facilities in Gulf countries in its list of retaliatory targets, making it clear that steel and petrochemical industrial assets are within the scope of potential attacks. This list bears both symbolic significance—targeting the "heart of steel and oil" of core regional allies—and substantial strike value. Once actions are taken, they would directly impact these countries' export structures and infrastructure rhythms, suppressing capital expenditure and industrial expectations. For Israel and the Gulf countries, this is not just an economic matter but a test of whether their security and deterrence systems can still "hold the bottom line".

The battle for industrial facilities escalates into a multifaceted economic warfare logic covering employment, supply chains, and a sense of security. Steel mills support various industrial chain segments including infrastructure, real estate, and manufacturing. If capacity is interrupted, it will not only compress local employment but also transmit impacts to a broader market through changes in upstream ore and downstream construction demands. Gulf industrial facilities are closely linked to exports of crude oil, petrochemicals, and liquefied natural gas; even a localized halt can amplify traders' concerns about supply safety, pushing up "geopolitical risk premiums" in both futures and spot markets.

In such a structure, a strike can lead to a返击, and a clear spiral escalation path is visible: from a single steel mill to multiple industrial parks, from symbolic attacks to continuous consumption targeting key infrastructures. Once control slips, the conflict will spill beyond the region, affecting global commodity and energy prices—the volatility ranges of iron ore and steel futures will be forced to elevate, and oil prices could experience risk premium adjustments due to "potential supply disruptions". For economies relying on inputs of raw materials and energy from the Middle East and surrounding areas, this chain reaction constitutes not only a pricing issue but also a systemic uncertainty regarding inflation and industrial planning.

While Publicly Making Tough Statements, Peace Frameworks Are Tested Behind the Scenes

Behind the stern military declarations, a secret diplomatic channel is also running concurrently. According to briefings, the US has chosen to submit a 15-point peace agreement framework to Iran through Pakistan; the specific terms of this document have not been made public yet, but its existence itself constitutes a contradictory image alongside the publicly emphasized "hardline approach": on one side, stressing preparations for escalation in front of the camera, while on the other, quietly testing the boundaries for ceasefire and de-escalation.

The choice of Pakistan as an intermediary by the US is directly linked to its multifaceted role in the region. Pakistan has long served as a critical node in the US security agenda, maintained certain interactions with Iran in border issues, population flows, and energy cooperation, and has complex military and economic ties with multiple Gulf nations. This intersecting network allows it to access a part of the Iranian decision-making circuit without bearing heavy "alignment labels" as conventional Western allies do, providing greater maneuverability for both sides.

Although the 15-point framework lacks publicly disclosed specifics, it can typically be inferred that its discussions may revolve around ceasefire arrangements, protection of essential industrial and energy facilities, prisoner or captive exchanges, humanitarian corridors, and subsequent negotiation mechanisms. However, in the absence of confirmed information, any envisioning of specific terms remains speculative; what can currently be confirmed is that the US aims to compress military escalations into negotiable ranges through a structured topic agenda.

In this pattern, the "frontline confrontation, backend testing of ceasefire" dual-track strategy has become a common gaming tool for both sides. For the US, maintaining high pressure on the frontline is beneficial for negotiating a more favorable starting point at the subsequent negotiation table; for Iran, high-profile mobilization and the revenge list are necessary to satisfy domestic hardline opinions while also enhancing its leverage in any potential peace framework. Both sides are shaping the battlefield landscape through time and actions while also continuously testing ceasefire boundaries via third-party channels, trying to leave the most ideal combination of "war and peace" until the final moments reveal it.

Quick Victory in Weeks or Long-term Attrition? G7 Timeline and Iran's Endurance Race

From publicly available information, Rubio conveyed an expectation of "ending the war within weeks" to the G7, and internal discussions within the G7 broadly locked the conflict duration within a 2-4 week range. This consensus reflects a comprehensive balance of considerations regarding Western supply lines, air defense pressures, and domestic political cycles: while high-intensity airstrikes and long-range strikes can sustain on a tactical level, they struggle to endure prolonged stalemates under the pressures of budgets, votes, and media narratives. Therefore, the "short-cycle, high-intensity" striking mode has become t

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。