US-Iran tensions: What are the four possible scenarios between war and diplomacy?

 US-Iran tensions: What are the four possible scenarios between war and diplomacy?

 

At a time when Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir is in Iran with a delegation, the idea has gained momentum that the US is considering a second phase of ceasefire talks with Iran.

The US-Iran talks hosted by Pakistan ended without reaching any conclusion after 20 hours, but the two-week ceasefire is still in place.

The day after these talks ended, President Donald Trump announced a new strategy on Iran, which includes a proposal to block the Strait of Hormuz.

It should be remembered that the Strait of Hormuz is a vital waterway that serves as a lifeline for the global oil trade.

However, the question now arises that in view of this initial failure of the talks, is further talks possible and are the US and Iran once again moving towards tension and the region moving towards a wider war?

According to experts, four possible scenarios for the future situation may emerge.

A weak ceasefire or a temporary pause

The ceasefire, which came after weeks of fighting between the US and Iran, appeared to suggest that both sides were trying to defuse the crisis, but the truce was fraught with ambiguity from the start.

Disagreements over the scope of the ceasefire, its objectives and the impact of violating it have led experts to believe that it is not a lasting agreement but a temporary one.

BBC investigation reveals false claims of domestic violence by refugees seeking to settle in the UK

According to Behnam Bin Talib Low, a senior fellow at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “The chances of reaching an agreement after the war broke out were almost zero from the start.”

Bin Talib Low told BBC Persian that there were many fundamental policy differences between the US and Iran, and the recent war had exacerbated these differences rather than reducing them.

Meanwhile, conflicting statements from both sides have also served to make the situation more fragile.

Iranian officials repeatedly accuse Iran of violating the ceasefire, while the United States and Israel offer different explanations for their roles in the ceasefire.

These different narratives are deepening mistrust between the parties and raising questions about the sustainability of the ceasefire.

If the negotiation efforts fail, the ceasefire will simply be a way to buy time, perhaps giving the parties a breathing space during which they can assess their positions and prepare for the next phase.

This scenario becomes more pronounced when one of the parties realizes that it is not in a position to benefit from the current situation and needs to increase pressure.

For example, the United States may decide to target key Iranian facilities, including power plants, bridges, or energy centers.

Such attacks may increase pressure in the short term, but their humanitarian and economic consequences will be very serious, and there will also be a risk of a strong response from Iran.

Meanwhile, Israel, already skeptical about the talks, may consider taking advantage of the opportunity.

According to international affairs researcher Hamid Reza Azizi, “Israel may take steps such as targeting Iranian figures or those involved in the talks.”

He added that President Donald Trump’s policy of blocking the Strait of Hormuz could also increase the risk of conflict, contrary to the intentions of the parties.

While the possibility of an increase in tensions cannot be ruled out, the potential heavy costs, including a wider war in the region and global economic pressure, do not seem to indicate that this situation is imminent, at least not immediately.

‘Shadow War’

The most likely scenario is for the US and Iran to return to a situation known as ‘controlled escalation’, meaning tensions will increase but will not escalate to full-scale war.

This would mean that neither side would stop military operations completely, but would not allow the war to reach full intensity.

In the meantime, limited attacks on infrastructure, military targets or supply lines could continue. The role of proxy groups could increase.

Iranian-backed groups, including those operating in Iraq or the Red Sea, could increase their activities, while the US could increase pressure on these networks.

In this way, the scope of the conflict could widen, even if its intensity does not increase. Some experts are also using the term ‘shadow war’ for this.

According to international affairs researcher Hamid Reza Azizi, “Both sides want to use their methods of exerting pressure, but their intention is probably not to go all-out.”

He says that if the ceasefire is violated, Iran is very likely to launch new operations, especially through its allied forces in Yemen.

However, he warns that this scenario is not without risk. As tensions rise, the likelihood of miscalculations increases, and even if neither side intends to escalate, a wrong decision can send the conflict spiraling out of control.

Silent diplomacy

Although the talks in Pakistan failed to reach an agreement, it would be wrong to say that diplomacy is over or that there is no possibility of talks.

 

Pakistan, which hosted the talks, may continue to try to broker a compromise in the coming days by conveying messages between Tehran and Washington.

It should be noted that the White House has indicated that ‘if negotiations take place, they are very likely to take place in Islamabad.’

Meanwhile, traditional mediator countries including Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Egypt may also become active. These countries are aware that the situation could worsen if the crisis gets out of control, so they will try to maintain contacts and prevent sudden escalation of tensions.

However, any progress on this path is possible only if both sides reduce their fundamental differences.

The 15-point proposal of the United States and the 10-point counter-proposal of Iran show that the parties are still prioritizing their own terms rather than a middle path.

Therefore, although a new round of talks is not impossible, the expectation of a quick and complete agreement does not seem realistic in the near term.

Naval blockade

,Image captionThe Iranian military has threatened to close shipping in the Gulf, Red Sea and Gulf of Oman if the US naval blockade continues

According to the announcement of the US president, the country's navy intends to impose a naval blockade on Iran, which will prevent any ship or oil tanker from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has also threatened that the US may stop ships that pay Iran a large fee to pass through this route in international waters.

The aim of this strategy is apparently to reduce Iran's oil revenues and put pressure on its economy, as well as to affect Iran's largest buyer, China.

According to Behnam bin Talib, a naval blockade of Iranian ports could be effective if appropriate intelligence and surveillance resources are allocated for this purpose, given Iran's long coastline.

According to him, the practical result of this measure will be that the government will not be able to send out its main export goods.

But some analysts say the policy could be costly for the United States, as it would bring the US military closer to Iran and make it more vulnerable to attack.

In addition, the plan would require the Navy to remain close to Iran's borders for a long time, which would come at a huge financial cost.

Maintaining such a policy could also raise global oil and energy prices and increase the likelihood that the Houthis will try to influence the Bab al-Mandab waterway, which could further increase oil prices.

Unclear rules and consequences difficult to predict

With all these possible scenarios in mind, it is easy to see that the region has entered a phase where the line between war and peace has become more blurred than ever.

The failure to reach an agreement at the talks in Pakistan neither signals the end of diplomacy nor does it mean that

Instead, however, the situation points to an ambiguous phase that is neither full-blown war nor full peace.

According to Hamid Reza Azizi, “Although both sides want this conflict to end, it does not seem to be happening immediately.”

In the current environment, even small decisions, security-related measures, and minor changes on the ground can have a big impact on the overall direction of the crisis.

That is why many analysts are describing this situation as an environment where the rules are not clear and the outcomes are difficult to predict.

Perhaps the most accurate thing in such a situation is that Iran and the United States have entered a phase where both war and negotiations are going on simultaneously. Both sides are also relying on military means, and diplomatic contacts have not been completely closed.