Xinhua News Agency: How many possible outcomes are there for the end of the Iran conflict?

The U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict has continued for more than a month, and signs of possible talks have recently emerged. Even if negotiations do take place, the intensity of the fighting is not necessarily destined to fall. The possibility that the conflict could drag on—through a pattern of fighting and pausing, as well as talks held alongside attacks—still remains.

What kind of endgame this conflict will have has become a focus of heated discussion among multiple think tanks. Observers, combining viewpoints from different sides, have put forward four scenarios.

Four Endgames

Several experts from U.S. think tanks said that President Donald Trump is now looking for a feasible “exit ramp,” rather than “climbing further up the escalation ladder.” Overall, there are four endgame paths.

Path one: unilaterally declare victory and reduce military involvement.

This is considered the most politically realistic way to leave for now. The White House has long promoted the supposed results of U.S. military strikes against Iran, and has already, in full or partial form, left Trump room to “declare victory” and “reduce military involvement,” laying the political groundwork for ending the crisis “in a posture of victory.” Once, in the coming weeks, Iran’s direct threats to U.S. forces in the Middle East, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States’ homeland decline, Trump is likely to define the current phase as “the main objectives have been accomplished,” shifting the conflict into a deterrence and sanctions phase with lower intensity.

This is a damaged building photographed on March 29 in Tehran, the capital of Iran. The building was severely damaged that same morning in U.S.-Israel strikes. Xinhua News Agency reporter 沙达提 (Shadati) photo

However, this does not mean the war truly ends. In the short term, Trump may be able to declare victory to the domestic audience. In the long term, the United States will face an Iran that, though weakened, still wants revenge—and the issue of freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz has not been fundamentally resolved. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. State Department Middle East negotiator, put it vividly: “Trump built himself a box called the ‘Iran War,’ and now he can’t find a way out.”

Path two: forced ceasefire, limited ceasefire, or mediated ceasefire.

This is the most discussed possible outcome. George Beebe and Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft believe that the United States’ current military action against Iran cannot achieve the goal of “eliminating the threat,” and must shift to a strategy of “managing rather than resolving,” achieving a dignified exit through an agreement involving compromises among multiple parties. Any viable exit path needs both sides to be able to claim “some level of victory.”

A report by the International Crisis Group said that neither the United States nor Israel and Iran will be able to achieve a decisive victory. The most urgent task is not to solve all issues, but to achieve mutual ceasefire immediately. The report noted that the parties actually have narrative space to claim victory. After a ceasefire, many thorny issues—such as Iran’s nuclear capabilities and missile programs, U.S. sanctions and troop deployments, and Israel’s security strategy—would still simmer, but for now the costs of war are already too high to bear. Rather than trying to resolve everything immediately and risking the war getting out of control, it would be better to first stop the fighting, step back, and then address these difficulties gradually through diplomatic channels.

Richard Haass, honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz are the two main areas of focus for the U.S. The former cannot be resolved through military means; it can only be addressed through negotiations and internationally agreed nuclear verification mechanisms involving multiple parties.

This photo, released by the Royal Thai Navy on March 11, shows a Thai cargo ship set ablaze after being attacked in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. Xinhua News Agency photo (provided by the Royal Thai Navy)

That said, the key to the ceasefire path is mutual trust between the two sides, but this foundation has been seriously damaged. Even if a ceasefire is reached, its implementation and maintenance would be extremely fragile. The U.S.’s “black record” of repeatedly carrying out strikes during the negotiations has severely undermined the basis of mutual understanding between the U.S. and Iran. The Iranian government has also demonstrated its determination to respond to “aggressors” with “defensive actions.” Differences between the United States and Israel are also gradually becoming apparent, affecting the endgame of the war.

Path three: long-term low-intensity confrontation.

If there is no real military victory and no politically acceptable ceasefire, the most likely situation is one of “war cooling down but the conflict continuing.”

Think tanks including the Stimson Center and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy analyze that Iran still has the ability to maintain pressure through missiles, drones, and maritime threats, while the United States is unlikely to be able to completely eliminate the Iranian threat without taking on even higher risks.

Under this kind of pattern, the fighting would shift from concentrated airstrikes to long-term attrition. Even if the surface intensity declines, it would be harder to end. This outcome has neither formal peace nor a clear victory—only repeated low-intensity clashes. If a military conflict with Iran becomes prolonged, the United States would have to bear, for the long term, the costs of military attrition, volatility in energy markets, and the global strategic resources tied up in the Middle East.

This is a gas station photographed on March 17 in El Monte, Los Angeles County, California, United States. Xinhua News Agency photo (曾慧 by Zeng Hui)

Haass judges that the conflict’s most likely end is not peace and not victory, but “a chaotic Middle East, accompanied by repeated but limited violence, with Iran playing an important role in the Strait of Hormuz, and an inadequate nuclear arrangement.” If the Trump administration leans toward declaring victory and reducing investment in the region, this chaotic state would be even more likely to become reality.

Path four: a runaway escalation into a bigger regional war.

This is the path with the highest “tail risk,” but it is also one that cannot be underestimated. In finance and risk management, “tail risk” refers to the risk of extreme events with low probability but high loss. As long as the U.S.-Israel-Iran efforts to deter and strike shipping routes and energy facilities continue, the conflict could shift from a regional war into a regional energy security crisis, pulling major economic entities in Europe and Asia into it as well. Its ripple effects would spread to Europe’s energy security, global inflation expectations, and strategic rivalry among major powers.

Binary propositions

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Fund, has embedded this war within his “big cycle” theory framework, summarizing the endgame with a binary proposition: “Everything depends on who controls the Strait of Hormuz. If the U.S. cannot control its right of passage, it will be seen as losing this war, and the consequences could be like the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, which marked the decline of British imperial hegemony.”

The Suez Canal crisis was the Second Middle East War: a military operation carried out in 1956 by Britain and France, together with Israel, in an attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. International society broadly condemned the actions by the three countries. Under strong international pressure, Britain and France were forced to accept the ceasefire resolution, and Israel also agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.

Dalio said: “This war, for Iran’s leadership, is about survival. At the same time, the American public is worried about high oil prices, and America’s leaders are worried about the midterm elections in Congress. This war will test everyone’s endurance.”

He also believes that Iran, according to reports, has agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers that conduct transactions in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, which could threaten the petrodollar system that underpins U.S. financial hegemony.

Source of this article: Xinhua News Agency

Risk warning and disclaimer

        There are risks in the market; investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it consider any specific investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at your own risk.