USA x Iran: four possible scenarios of what lies ahead in the conflict

USA vs. Iran: four possible scenarios of what lies ahead in the conflict Getty Images United States President Donald Trump said that Iran has agreed to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium, one of the key issues in possible negotiations to end the war. According to Trump, negotiations between the two countries could resume over the weekend, with the American and Iranian governments “very close” to an agreement, according to him. Iran did not comment on Trump’s statements. Trump also said he believed that an extension of the ceasefire with Iran, which is set to expire early next week, would not be necessary due to the proximity of a possible agreement. An initial dialogue between the two countries, last weekend in Pakistan, ended on Sunday without progress. Given this scenario, what are the possible directions for the conflict? Below are four possible scenarios for what could happen. 1. Fragile ceasefire as ‘strategic’ pause On April 7, Iran and the US agreed to a two-week ceasefire, which led to celebrations in Tehran Getty Images After weeks of attacks, the US-Iran ceasefire appeared to signal a willingness to contain the crisis. However, from the beginning, this truce has been marked by inaccuracies. Differences in interpretation of its terms — including the geographic scope, the types of targets included, and even the definition of a “ceasefire violation” — have led some analysts to view the agreement more as a strategic pause than a lasting solution. “The chances of reaching an agreement were close to zero from the beginning,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “There is a set of principles, positions and policies on which the US and the Islamic Republic have differed for years. In the short term, the war has not only not reduced these differences, it has intensified them,” he told BBC News Persian. At the same time, contradictory statements from officials on both sides have increased the fragility of the situation. While Iranian officials speak of repeated violations of the ceasefire, the US and Israel adopt a more limited interpretation of what was agreed. This divergence of narratives deepened distrust and cast doubt on the durability of the agreement. If attempts to resume negotiations fail to bring results, the ceasefire is likely to become little more than a way to buy time — allowing the parties to pause, recover and reorganize, reevaluate their positions, and prepare for the next phase. This scenario becomes more likely if one side concludes that it is gaining very little from the current situation, and that it is necessary to significantly increase pressure. The United States, for example, could consider attacking critical infrastructure in Iran — such as power plants, bridges, or energy facilities — as a possible option. Although this type of action could generate pressure in the short term, it would also have broad humanitarian and economic consequences, in addition to being able to provoke a stronger response from Iran. At the same time, Israel, which maintains strong skepticism regarding the negotiations, is likely to become an even more influential actor. “Israel may resort to actions such as assassinations of Iranian individuals and officials, including those involved in negotiations,” said Hamidreza Azizi, an international relations researcher. “Donald Trump’s declared policy of blocking the Strait of Hormuz increases the risk of confrontation, even if the parties do not directly desire this,” he added. While the possibility of escalation cannot be ruled out, its potentially high costs — such as the risk of broader regional conflict and impacts on the global economy — may make this scenario less likely, at least in the short term. 2. ‘War in the shadows’ A controlled escalation could involve limited attacks on infrastructure, military targets or even AFP supply lines via Getty Images One scenario — perhaps one of the most likely — is a return to a type of confrontation that might be described as a “controlled escalation.” This means that the conflict would not reach the level of a full-scale war, but there would also not be a total interruption of military actions. In this context, limited attacks on infrastructure, military targets or even supply lines could continue. The role of indirect actors would gain even more relevance. Increased activity by Iran-aligned groups in Iraq or the Red Sea, along with greater pressure from the United States on these networks, could expand the geographic reach of the conflict without necessarily increasing its intensity. Some analysts describe this scenario as a “war in the shadows”. “Both sides want to use their options and instruments of pressure to influence the other without going into a full-scale war,” said Hamidreza Azizi. “If the ceasefire is violated, the likelihood of Iran taking further action through its allied forces — especially in Yemen — is considered high,” he added. However, this scenario is not without risks. As tensions increase, so does the risk of miscalculations. And, even without the intention of escalating the conflict, a single mistake can take it to an uncontrollable level. 3. Discreet diplomacy continues Despite the failure of negotiations in Pakistan, a new round of diplomatic efforts may already be underway Pool/Getty Images Despite the failure of negotiations in Pakistan, it is not yet possible to conclude that diplomacy has exhausted itself or that talks are out of the question. Pakistan, as host of these meetings, should continue its efforts in the coming days to encourage Tehran and Washington to reach an agreement, acting as an intermediary in the exchange of messages between the two sides. At the same time, traditional mediators — such as Qatar, Oman and even Saudi Arabia and Egypt — may become more active in the face of fears that the conflict will spiral out of control, functioning as channels of communication and trying to prevent a sudden escalation of the crisis. However, any progress in this direction depends on the reduction of differences between the US and Iran. The 15-point proposal from the United States and the 10-point counter-proposal from Iran indicate that both still prioritize imposing their own terms, rather than seeking a middle ground. So, although a new round of negotiations is possible, expecting a quick and comprehensive agreement seems unrealistic — at least in the short term. 4. Prolonged naval blockade The Iranian Armed Forces have threatened navigation in the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman if the US naval blockade continues Anadolu via Getty Images The President of the United States announced that the American Navy intends to impose a maritime blockade on Iran, preventing ships and oil tankers from passing through the Strait of Hormuz. He has also threatened to intercept, in international waters, any vessel that pays transit fees to Iran to cross the strait — a strategy that appears aimed at depriving the country of oil revenues, stifling its economy and, at the same time, targeting the US’s main rival, China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil. “A maritime blockade of Iran’s ports can be highly effective if there is sufficient allocation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance resources,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, highlighting Iran’s extensive coastline. “The practical result of a measure like this would be to deprive the government of its ability to export its main commodity.” But other analysts point to the significant costs this policy could impose on the United States by bringing its military forces closer to Iran and making them more vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, for the plan to be effective, naval forces would need to remain mobilized close to Iranian borders for an extended period, which would imply high costs. Maintaining this strategy could also cause global oil and energy prices to rise, as well as increase the likelihood of Houthi intervention to block traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which could further pressure oil prices. Structural instability: a new order in the region? Iran and the US may have entered a phase where war and negotiations are happening simultaneously AFP via Getty Images Ultimately, what these scenarios indicate is that the region has entered a phase where the border between war and peace is fuzzier than ever. The failure of negotiations in Pakistan does not signal the end of diplomacy, nor does it mark the definitive beginning of a wider war. Instead, it points to the continuation of a “gray zone” situation. “Although both sides want this conflict to come to an end, this does not seem likely in the short term,” said Hamidreza Azizi. In the current context, strategic decisions, security issues and even small developments at the site of the conflict can have disproportionate impacts on the course of the crisis. This has led many analysts to talk about “structural instability” in the region — a condition in which the rules of the game are not completely defined and whose outcome is unpredictable. In this scenario, perhaps the most accurate description is that Iran and the United States have entered a phase in which war and negotiation occur simultaneously. Both continue to resort to military tools while keeping diplomatic channels partially open. See the videos that are trending on g1

Source link