There is no military solution to war with Iran

Three months after the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran, the American blockade and Tehran's control of the Strait of Hormuz have created a stalemate: neither side is yielding, economic pressure is deepening, and the risk of renewed war is growing.

The concern among policymakers is no longer whether a deal is close, but how long tensions can last before a miscalculation by Washington or Tehran triggers a new conflict.

President Donald Trump said yesterday that the US may have to attack Iran again and that he was just an hour away from ordering the strike before he called it off. "I was an hour away from making the decision to go today," Trump said.

He said Iranian leaders were begging for a deal, adding that another US attack would occur in the coming days if an agreement was not reached.

"Well, I mean, I'm talking about two or three days, maybe Friday, Saturday, Sunday, something like that, maybe early next week, a limited period of time, because we can't let them have new nuclear weapons."

Calls for a new strike are growing louder in the US and Israel, with some officials arguing that increased pressure could weaken Tehran's negotiating position and force Iran to return to the negotiating table.

"There's one big problem with that theory: we've already tested it, multiple times, and Iran hasn't capitulated," Dani Citrinovich, a senior researcher on Iran at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iran department at Israel's military intelligence, told Reuters.

"We are in a war of attrition, with the possibility of a new US-Israeli attack growing by the day," said one regional official.

Iranian officials told Reuters that concessions regarding their missile program, nuclear capabilities or control over the strait are not instruments of politics, but ideological pillars of the Islamic Republic's survival - giving them up would not mean compromise, but surrender.

This explains, Citrinovich said, why even a prolonged military confrontation has not moved Tehran away from its red lines and why further escalation is unlikely to succeed.

Rounds of indirect talks mediated by Pakistan have not yielded a breakthrough. The differences remain huge, according to Reuters.

Both sides believe that time is working in their favor.

The US wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years and send its stockpiles to the US.

Iranian state media reported yesterday that Tehran's latest peace proposal includes an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, the withdrawal of US forces from areas near Iran, and reparations for the destruction caused by US-Israeli attacks.

These two sides will never reach an agreement. Trump doesn't just want to win, he wants to humiliate Iran and be seen as someone who has crushed Iran, said Alan Eyre

Tehran also demanded the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets and an end to the US naval blockade, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, quoted by the IRNA news agency. The terms described in the Iranian reports appeared little changed from Iran's previous offer, which Trump dismissed as "garbage" last week.

The US president warned Tehran that “time is running out”, saying that “they better move, and quickly, or there will be nothing left of them”. He threatened that if Tehran does not reach an agreement with Washington, “very difficult times will follow”.

Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group said neither side has shown a willingness to make the “painful concessions” necessary for a deal. “Both sides believe that time is on their side and that they have the upper hand, and it is this perception that makes a deal impossible.”

The result is a war of attrition centered on one of the world's most important waterways. Before the war, the strait carried about 25 percent of global oil trade and 20 percent of liquefied natural gas trade. Now, with the strait almost closed, the economic fallout is spreading and disrupting supplies.

Former State Department official on Iran Alan Ayer, who participated in previous US-Iranian negotiations, said a deal may be out of reach. “These two sides will never reach a deal. Trump doesn’t just want to win, he wants to humiliate Iran and be seen as someone who broke Iran.”

Tehran sees its stockpile of enriched uranium and control of the Strait of Hormuz as key strategic assets necessary for survival. “Iran is therefore determined to use these assets to guarantee its interests,” a senior Iranian official told Reuters, adding that capitulation was not an option.

"We fight, we die, but we do not accept humiliation. Surrender is fundamentally incompatible with the identity of Iran."

Behind the defiance, growing pressure on the Iranian economy

Another Iranian official argues that Tehran has already won - not by defeating Washington militarily, but by refusing to give in. Weeks of US and Israeli strikes have not broken Iran's will, but have reinforced its belief that its nuclear arsenal and control of the Strait of Hormuz remain the core of its deterrence.

Giving them up would upset that balance. “Trump wants to declare victory, but Iran won’t give it to him. Can the world economy withstand the pressure? That’s a question Trump owes the world an answer to,” he added.

New strikes would not change Iran's calculus, but would only accelerate escalation, he told the British agency, adding that Iran would not give up uranium enrichment or comply with Washington's uncompromising ultimatums.

Yet, behind the defiant stance, Iranian sources close to the establishment describe a more complex reality: Tehran does not want a long-term “neither war nor peace” scenario, while inflation is rising, unemployment is worsening, and strikes on key industries are further depleting an already hard-hit economy.

Instead, they said, Iran is seeking a preliminary agreement to end the war - reopening the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control in exchange for lifting the US blockade, before moving on to more difficult issues such as easing sanctions and nuclear restrictions. The US argues that ending the war must be postponed until later talks.

On the nuclear issue, Iranian sources say Tehran could dilute its stockpile of 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium or send some of it abroad, possibly to Russia, with the argument that it could return it if Washington violates any agreement. Washington has refused.

Iran is also insisting on a shorter enrichment suspension than Washington's demand of 20 years, as well as full access to $30 billion worth of frozen assets, but Washington has only agreed to release a quarter of those assets under the agreed timeframe, the sources added.

Negotiations the only option

Tehran is seeking a new mechanism to govern the Strait of Hormuz, rejecting a return to the pre-war status quo, while the US insists on an unconditional reopening - no tolls, no vetoes - a gap that could prove more difficult to bridge than the nuclear issue alone.

Aaron David Miller, a former US official and Middle East negotiator, says control of the Strait of Hormuz will be a key measure of Washington's success or failure. How this ends could define Trump's foreign policy, he added, as the US leader is particularly sensitive to the risk of being seen as a loser.

Reopening the waterway without a political solution, Miller added, would require “prolonged American occupation of Iranian territory by ground forces.”

There is no military solution to the Strait of Hormuz other than a costly solution that Trump may not be ready for, Vaez said, leaving negotiations as the only viable path.

Despite the operational gains of the US-Israeli campaign, the strikes have not delivered a strategic knockout blow, Citrinovich said. “We didn’t bring down the regime – we got a more radical one. We didn’t end Iran’s missile capabilities. And they still have uranium.”

Citrinovich said that overestimating the pressure and underestimating Tehran's resilience carries its own dangers.

“This increases the risk that Washington will re-enter the confrontation expecting that coercion will lead to capitulation, only to discover too late that the regime was prepared to endure much more pain than expected,” he said.