Authored by Dr. Badra Gaaloul President of the International Center for Strategic, Security, and Military Studies27 March 2026

The world today witnesses a new model of warfare, surpassing escalation, threats, precision strikes, and artificial intelligence; it represents a struggle where military tools intertwine with economic pressures and geopolitical concerns. In this arena, diplomacy and negotiations advance upon the strings of missiles, aircraft, assaults—and the outcome, in this context, no longer hinges on who emerges victorious in this quasi-hybrid war, nor on when it might cease. Rather, reality imposes a novel rhythm: the question is who possesses the capacity to dictate that rhythm and the terms of its conclusion. It is not necessarily the initiator who brings it to an end, for the rhythm has surpassed all traditional reckonings. All fronts have opened, and others may follow that neither side can restrain…

Contemporary conflict compels the United States to seek de-escalation, as its calculations, intelligence assessments, and situational evaluations descend into disarray. Trump abhors defeat; he is a gambler who recoups gains by any means. With Iran, he has encountered minefields at every turn, and defeat—by these new measures—looms perilously close. Consequently, Trumpian diplomacy now maneuvers through a proposed meeting between J.D. Vance and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, following his earlier derision that “we have killed all their leaders, leaving no one to negotiate with.” To preserve face—though he cares little for such concerns—this American initiative has surfaced, appearing superficially as an effort to reduce tensions, while its core is replete with evasions, deceptions, and time-buying tactics. In essence, it constitutes a new maneuver imposed upon Trump.

Can a hesitant initiative, lacking a foundation of trust, truly succeed?

An initial assessment indicates that the prevailing context reflects a growing recognition within the Trump administration that prolonged open confrontation carries significant and potentially unmanageable strategic costs. Escalation dynamics have begun to expand in ways that affect multiple actors.

Under these conditions, sustaining the current trajectory appears untenable. Consequently, emerging thinking within White House decision-making circles points toward the need to pursue de-escalation—though not necessarily to lead it.

This highlights a widening gap between intended objectives and the realities on the ground, where the dynamics of conflict exceed initial expectations. The costs are extremely high—even in scenarios framed as victory—and the nature of this war departs from conventional models: it has no clearly defined fronts, no decisive winners, and remains open to continuous escalation.

More precisely, the United States does not appear to be leading a process of de-escalation, but rather seeking one amid increasingly volatile and complex conditions.

In contrast, field developments point to a more severe and dangerous trajectory. Reports indicate that joint U.S.–Israeli strikes have targeted critical energy infrastructure in Isfahan and Khorramshahr, including gas facilities and supply lines linked to electricity production. This shift from primarily military targets to vital infrastructure represents a significant and concerning escalation, suggesting a move toward undermining the opponent’s capacity for long-term resilience—namely, its economic backbone.

Such developments also cast doubt on claims of decisive military success, instead indicating a transition toward a different and more controversial phase of conflict. The targeting of civilian infrastructure raises serious concerns regarding compliance with international legal norms.

As attention turns to the proposed five-day window for de-escalation—widely perceived as unrealistic—it is important to emphasize that such actions are unlikely to occur without serious and immediate consequences. While they may produce short-term tactical gains, they simultaneously raise the threshold  of potential responses and broaden the scope of confrontation. Evidence increasingly suggests that Iran is not merely absorbing strikes but responding forcefully, a reality well understood by both Washington and Tel Aviv.

This dynamic reflects a strategic equation that remains unresolved: attempts to provoke escalation while avoiding prolonged attrition. Notably, several traditional U.S. allies, particularly in Europe, have declined to engage militarily, framing the conflict as outside their direct interests. This marks a significant limitation on broader coalition-building efforts.

At present, Iran appears to be operating across multiple levels, including issuing regional warnings—such as calls for evacuations in parts of northern Israel—and increasing indirect pressure along various fronts. While some actions have targeted energy-related sites in the Gulf, these responses appear calibrated rather than decisive, aligning with a broader strategy of strategic patience, gradual attrition, and psychological pressure.

Here, a clear divergence in strategic approaches becomes evident. The United States appears to be managing the crisis through a combination of conventional and unconventional means, while Iran relies on a distinct framework centered on time management and long-term pressure. This approach may well become a case study in 21st-century conflict dynamics.

Tehran seems to be betting on prolonging the conflict at minimal cost, successfully transforming time into a tool of political and economic pressure. This dynamic complicates U.S. objectives—particularly those of President Trump, who initially appeared to envision a short engagement culminating in a decisive outcome. Instead, developments on the ground have unfolded in ways that challenge those expectations.

Each additional day without resolution allows Iran to accumulate leverage and expand its negotiating position. Conversely, the U.S. leadership faces a growing dilemma: the crisis deepens, costs escalate significantly, and no clear victory emerges. Tactical gains are often overshadowed by continued Iranian missile activity, contributing to apparent inconsistencies in U.S. policy signals—oscillating between escalation, de-escalation, declarations of victory, and calls for negotiation.

Meanwhile, Iran projects an image of strategic patience and consistency, reinforcing its position in both the psychological and media dimensions of the conflict.

A frequently cited example is the apparent contradiction in U.S. messaging: while announcing a five-day de-escalation window, military preparations continue in parallel, with offensive options—including ground operations and control over strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz—remaining under consideration. Analysts and observers have responded to these signals with a mix of concern and uncertainty.

This duality between political statements and military actions does not reflect a coherent strategy expected from a global power. Rather, it suggests a degree of strategic ambiguity—or even confusion—characterized by escalation without a clearly defined political objective, and de-escalation without sufficient implementation mechanisms.

In contrast, Iran appears fully aware of this dynamic—not only within U.S. decision-making but also among its regional allies—many of whom are actively seeking to contain the conflict.

At the diplomatic level, Iranian discourse has remained relatively consistent and aligned with developments on the ground. Statements by figures such as Mohsen Rezaei, linking an end to the conflict with sanctions relief and compensation, provide a clear and structured negotiating framework. By contrast, U.S. proposals—particularly under Trump—are often perceived as less realistic, despite Washington’s stated interest in negotiations.

From Tehran’s perspective, the war has become a tool for reshaping the terms of engagement with its adversary, whereas for the United States, it risks becoming an open-ended objective without clear strategic returns.

Regionally, uncertainty appears even more pronounced. Several states have intensified diplomatic efforts, positioning themselves as mediators to prevent broader escalation. There is a growing perception that the United States may not provide direct protection in the event of further escalation, leaving regional actors exposed.

As the conflict enters its fourth week, concerns are mounting. Movements by countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan suggest an awareness that further escalation could significantly reshape regional power dynamics.

This raises a central question: can de-escalation be achieved, and will regional diplomatic pressure be sufficient to produce tangible results?

On the ground, the situation within Israel appears increasingly complex. Military pressure is intensifying on multiple fronts, particularly in the north, alongside threats targeting strategic depth. Reports of ongoing missile activity further challenge existing deterrence frameworks.

At the regional level, there are also indications of rising political and social tensions within Israel, which may affect the leadership’s capacity to sustain a prolonged open-ended conflict.

As seen previously in Gaza, stated objectives remain unmet, while armed groups in both Palestine and Lebanon continue to impose costs and challenge military capabilities.

Overall, the conflict remains open and has yet to reach its most advanced stages. Many of its dynamics and outcomes remain uncertain. What we may be witnessing at present is only the first phase of a broader and more prolonged confrontation

Future Scenarios

Scenario One

The most plausible and realistic scenario is the continuation of a war of attrition, in which confrontation remains within controlled limits without escalating into a full-scale conflict.

Such a trajectory would place significant pressure on President Trump and his administration, particularly with the approach of U.S. midterm elections. Under these circumstances, there is a possibility that the United States may seek to open a new front as a form of strategic diversion—potentially in Africa—where a quicker and more manageable outcome might be pursued. In this context, countries such as Nigeria or Libya are sometimes mentioned as potential arenas.

Scenario Two

A second, less probable scenario—though reportedly considered within U.S. diplomatic circles—would involve the signing of a peace agreement with Iran, potentially mediated by China.

Such an agreement would likely result in a temporary freezing of hostilities without addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. At the same time, it could be accompanied by longer-term strategies aimed at weakening the Iranian system from within, through indirect means and sustained pressure over time.

Scenario Three

The third scenario, widely regarded as the most concerning among regional leadership, involves the risk of large-scale, uncontrolled escalation. This could result from miscalculation or the targeting of highly sensitive assets.

Although relatively less likely, this scenario represents the most dangerous outcome, as it could trigger a broader conflict with global repercussions. In such a case, all parties would incur significant losses, and the conflict could expand into multiple fronts that would be difficult to contain or resolve.

Conclusion

Current developments in what is often described as the “core” of the international system—the Middle East—point toward a fundamental transformation:

The existing regional order appears to be undergoing erosion, suggesting that the post-war period may give rise to a new geopolitical configuration. Traditional assumptions—such as unilateral deterrence, absolute military superiority, and the ability to shape narratives through media dominance—are increasingly being challenged.

This evolving conflict reflects a broader historical pattern, in which dominant powers eventually face structural limits to their influence. Historically, major empires—from the Byzantine to the Roman—did not necessarily collapse through immediate defeat, but rather through the gradual loss of their ability to unilaterally shape outcomes.

In this context, Iran does not appear to be seeking a decisive military victory, but rather to gradually reshape the rules of engagement and impose a new strategic rhythm. Meanwhile, Israel finds itself operating in an increasingly complex and less predictable strategic environment, where military strength alone does not guarantee control.

As emphasized throughout this analysis, this war cannot be measured solely in terms of battlefield victory. Rather, its outcome will depend on which actor succeeds in redefining the meaning of “victory” and in shaping the broader political, military, and economic dynamics of the conflict.

Given the current level of complexity and interconnection across multiple domains, the conflict appears to have entered a phase in which the traditional rules of warfare are being reconsidered and redefined in practice.

Ultimately, this moment reflects not only a regional crisis but also a broader transformation in the nature of conflict itself—one that underscores the enduring role of human agency, strategy, and adaptability in shaping historical outcomes.