The decision by US President Donald Trump to extend the ceasefire in the war with Iran shortly before its expiration marked a striking shift from his earlier rhetoric, which had emphasised escalation and outright destruction. The extension, reportedly encouraged by Pakistani mediation, was framed as an opportunity for Iran’s leadership to formulate a unified response to a proposed agreement. Yet the ambiguity surrounding the duration of the extension, alongside conflicting signals from Washington, reflected deeper uncertainty within the American approach. This shift followed Iran’s refusal to attend a second round of negotiations under pressure, raising critical questions about the balance of power and the strategic calculations on both sides.
Iran’s conduct throughout the conflict reveals a deliberate strategy centred on endurance and attrition. The war has been framed domestically as existential, not merely for the ruling regime but for national independence itself. This framing has contributed to a broad consolidation of internal support, even among segments critical of government policies. The ability of the Iranian state to maintain institutional continuity despite extensive targeting—quickly replacing leadership losses and preserving cohesion—reinforced its resilience. Although subjected to a vast and unprecedented bombing campaign, assessments suggest that Iran retained significant military capacity, enabling it to sustain deterrence and threaten retaliation.
Equally important has been the absence of meaningful internal destabilisation. External efforts to provoke opposition movements failed to produce significant unrest, while the state successfully neutralised networks aligned with foreign adversaries. At the same time, Iran activated regional alliances to extend the scope of pressure, using affiliated forces to threaten adversaries’ interests across multiple fronts. This regional dimension enhanced Iran’s bargaining position by increasing the potential costs of continued confrontation.
A central pillar of Iran’s strategy has been its selective restriction of maritime traffic through a critical waterway, disrupting global energy flows. This measure contributed to rising energy prices and broader economic repercussions, amplifying the international impact of the conflict. While the United States sought to minimise the domestic implications of these disruptions, global market volatility and supply constraints underscored the limits of that claim. Moreover, Iran’s capacity to circumvent a naval blockade—through alternative supply routes, stored reserves and informal trade networks—reduced the effectiveness of American pressure.
The economic dimension of Iran’s resilience is rooted in a long-standing emphasis on self-sufficiency. Over years, parallel networks of production and distribution were developed to mitigate external constraints. These structures, combined with extensive land borders and regional ties, have allowed Iran to sustain a degree of economic functionality under pressure. Nevertheless, the blockade has imposed real costs, and elements within the Iranian leadership have signalled that lifting such measures constitutes a key condition for renewed negotiations.
In parallel, the United States has pursued its own strategy of attrition. Recognising the limitations of sustained bombardment in securing rapid capitulation, Washington shifted toward economic strangulation and regional containment. The imposition of a naval blockade, continued military buildup, and reinforcement of regional deployments indicate that the ceasefire represents a tactical pause rather than a resolution. American policy has aimed to exploit economic vulnerabilities, increasing financial strain and social pressures within Iran.
Beyond direct confrontation, efforts have focused on weakening Iran’s regional influence. In neighbouring arenas, targeted actions against allied groups, political interventions and economic leverage have sought to reduce Iran’s strategic depth. These measures reflect an attempt to isolate Iran not only economically but also politically and militarily within its broader environment. However, the effectiveness of such efforts remains uncertain, given the complexity of local dynamics and the entrenched nature of existing alliances.
The conflict has thus entered a phase characterised less by direct military exchange and more by competing pressures over time. Each side appears to be testing the other’s capacity to endure sustained strain, whether economic, political or social. This dynamic introduces significant uncertainty, as neither side can indefinitely maintain its current posture without incurring escalating costs. Domestic considerations further complicate the picture, particularly for the United States, where public support and political timelines impose constraints on prolonged engagement.
Several trajectories remain plausible. One possibility is the continuation of the current standoff, with incremental adjustments leading eventually to a negotiated settlement involving partial concessions. Another is a return to large-scale military operations, potentially aimed at compelling compliance through intensified destruction. A third scenario involves the revival of negotiations through mediation, though such efforts face substantial obstacles and may require extended engagement to yield results.
The complexity of the conflict, marked by multiple actors, overlapping objectives and far-reaching consequences, resists simple prediction. Economic disruption, regional instability and the risk of sudden escalation all contribute to a volatile environment in which unforeseen developments could rapidly alter the course of events.
*This is a summary of a policy brief originally written in Arabic available here.