There’s a really important New York Times article from two days ago which describes the scale of destruction inside Iran. Across every kind of civilian and military infrastructure, estimates range from $300 billion to $1 trillion in damage. A lot of that damage is to heavy industry infrastructure at the core of the nation’s economy. Already before this war the Iranian economy was teetering, with out-of-control inflation and currency collapse. This winter’s demonstrations in Iran, which triggered such a ferociously brutal crackdown, were certainly broadly against the regime and its repressions. But they were also specifically a response to the collapsing economy. Now that all seems infinitely worse.

The Times article even suggests the strong possibility the present government isn’t equipped to inventory the scale of the damage. Iran’s “mosaic” strategy, in which local military units are given autonomy to act without central control, in order to make the state’s defense more resilient, may be great in military extremity. But it’s not great for running a state or economy. The best reporting suggests that the government of Iran is now pretty much entirely in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. That’s great as a force of domestic repression to keep the regime in place. But Iran is now facing a crisis that requires bureaucrats, civil engineers, economists.

What all of this means, I think, is that when Iran demands the return of all its frozen assets and an end to all sanctions, that may not be a bluff. It may be totally unrealistic. But it may not be a bluff. The regime’s survival may simply not be compatible with the kind of economic calamity the country now faces. So they may really need that money and that access to the global economy.

In some ways, the best angle for the Trump White House would simply be to pull back and allow Iran to simmer in this destruction. The regime may not be able to survive it. But of course Trump can’t do that because they need the Strait of Hormuz open. It may not be existential for the U.S. But it’s certainly existential for Donald Trump’s political future.