Three months following joint military action by the United States and Israel against Iran, an escalating standoff has developed with neither Washington nor Tehran showing signs of backing down, creating mounting economic hardship and increasing the likelihood of renewed warfare.
Policy experts are expressing growing alarm not about the possibility of reaching an agreement, but rather how much longer this volatile situation can continue before a strategic error by either the United States or Iran sparks another round of conflict.
Voices within the U.S. and Israel are increasingly advocating for additional military action, with certain officials believing that heightened pressure might diminish Tehran’s bargaining position and compel Iran to return to diplomatic discussions.
“There is one major problem with this theory: We have already tested it, repeatedly, and Iran did not capitulate,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher on Iran at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iran branch in Israeli Defense Intelligence.
“We’re in a war of attrition with the prospect of a new U.S.-Israeli attack growing by the day,” said one regional official.
Iranian officials told Reuters concessions on their missile programme, nuclear capabilities or control of the Strait are not policy tools but ideological pillars of the Islamic Republic’s survival — giving them up is not compromise, it is surrender.
This perspective, according to Citrinowicz, explains why extended military confrontation has been unable to force Tehran away from its fundamental positions, and why additional escalation is unlikely to achieve success.
Multiple rounds of indirect diplomatic discussions facilitated by Pakistan have failed to yield any significant progress. The differences between the two sides remain enormous.
The United States is demanding that Iran cease uranium enrichment activities for two decades and transfer its existing stockpiles to American custody.
Iran is seeking an end to military strikes, security assurances, compensation for war damages, and acknowledgment of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz — conditions that Washington has dismissed.
Iran’s foreign ministry did not reply to a request for comment. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the issues raised in this article.
President Donald Trump has warned Tehran that the “clock is ticking,” saying they “better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.” He threatened that if Tehran fails to reach a deal with Washington, it will face “a very bad time.”
Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group said neither side has shown willingness to make “the painful concessions” needed for a deal. “Both believe time is on their side and they have the upper hand, and that perception is precisely what is making a deal impossible.”
The outcome is a prolonged struggle focused on one of the globe’s most vital shipping routes. Prior to the conflict, the Strait handled approximately 25% of worldwide oil commerce and 20% of liquefied natural gas shipments. Currently, with the waterway nearly sealed off, economic consequences are expanding and disrupting supply chains.
Former State Department Iran official Alan Eyre, who took part in past U.S.-Iran talks, said an agreement may be out of reach. “These two sides will never reach a deal. Trump doesn’t want to just win, he wants to humiliate Iran and be seen as having crushed Iran.”
Tehran views its enriched uranium reserves and dominance over the Strait of Hormuz as fundamental strategic resources vital to its survival. “Iran is therefore determined to use these assets to guarantee its interests,” a senior Iranian official said, adding capitulation is not an option.
“We fight, we die, but we don’t accept humiliation. Surrender is fundamentally incompatible with Iran’s identity.”
A second Iranian official contended that Tehran has already achieved victory — not through military defeat of Washington, but by maintaining its resistance. Extended periods of U.S. and Israeli attacks have been unable to break Iran’s resolve, strengthening its belief that its nuclear reserves and Strait control remain central to its defensive strategy.
Giving up these advantages would destroy that equilibrium. “Trump wants to declare victory but Iran won’t give it to him. Can the world economy withstand the pressure? That’s the question Trump owes the world an answer to,” he added.
Additional strikes would not alter Iran’s strategic thinking, only speed up escalation, he stated, emphasizing that Iran will not abandon enrichment activities or yield to ultimatums without reciprocal concessions from Washington.
However, beneath the defiant public stance, Iranian sources close to the establishment describe a more conflicted reality: Tehran does not want a prolonged “no war, no peace” scenario as inflation rises, unemployment worsens and strikes on key industries bleed an already battered economy.
Instead, they said, Iran is seeking a preliminary deal to end the war — reopening the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian oversight in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade, before tackling harder issues such as sanctions relief and nuclear restrictions. The U.S. says ending the war must be deferred to later talks.
Regarding nuclear matters, Iranian sources indicate Tehran might dilute its 440 kilogram stockpile of highly enriched uranium or transfer portions overseas, preferably to Russia, maintaining it could retrieve the material if Washington breaches any future agreement. Washington has declined this proposal.
Iran is also advocating for a shorter suspension of enrichment than Washington’s 20-year requirement and complete access to $30 billion in frozen funds, but Washington has only agreed to release a quarter of those assets under a timetable, the sources added.
Tehran is pursuing a new management structure for the Strait of Hormuz, refusing to return to pre-conflict conditions, while the U.S. demands unconditional reopening — no fees, no restrictions — a division that may prove more difficult to resolve than the nuclear dispute itself.
Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. official and Middle East negotiator, says control of the Strait of Hormuz will be the key measure of success or failure for Washington. How this ends could define Trump’s foreign policy, he added, with the U.S. leader acutely sensitive to the risk of being seen as having lost.
Reopening the waterway without a political settlement, Miller added, would require “a prolonged American occupation with ground forces of Iranian territory”.
There is no military solution to the Strait of Hormuz other than the costly one that Trump may be unwilling to undertake, argued Vaez, leaving negotiations as the only viable path.
Despite operational gains of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, the strikes have failed to deliver a strategic knockout, Citrinowicz said.
“We didn’t topple the regime — we have a more radicalised one. We didn’t end Iran’s missile capacity. And they still have the uranium.”
Citrinowicz said overestimating pressure and underestimating Tehran’s resilience carries its own danger.
“It raises the risk that Washington once again enters a confrontation expecting coercion to produce capitulation, and discovers, too late, that the regime was prepared to absorb far more pain than anticipated,” he said.
