A War Without Victory: The Outcomes of the Conflict and the Future of the Region

The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has entered a new phase, more complex than initially planned. After weeks of intensive strikes on vital infrastructure and targeting prominent military leaders, it is clear that the bet on a quick resolution was unrealistic. The evident military superiority of the U.S. and Israel has not translated into decisive strategic outcomes but has pushed the conflict into a long and complex war of attrition, where direct confrontations intertwine with asymmetric response tools, as new rules of engagement are formed that are not expected to conclude soon.

In this context, Iran has demonstrated a remarkable ability to absorb the initial shock, not only by maintaining the cohesion of its institutional structure but also by flexibly reproducing response tools. This has manifested itself in a measured expansion of confrontation, whether by targeting deep inside Israel or threatening U.S. interests and bases in the region, in addition to utilizing indirect pressure tools that affect the arteries of the global economy. This transformation reflects not only resilience but indicates a conscious shift from a defensive posture to managing a long-term conflict with costs distributed among adversaries.

The Gap in Objectives Between Washington and Tel Aviv

However, this trajectory reveals an increasing gap in defining goals between Washington and Tel Aviv. While Netanyahu pushes for an extended and expanded war aiming to radically reshape the regional system, Trump appears more inclined to achieve a quick win that could be marketed domestically, without getting involved in an open-ended war that could drain U.S. resources and increase the cost of international leadership. This disparity is not limited to a difference in tactics, but reflects a structural imbalance in war management, where a shared "theory of victory" is absent, replaced instead by an uncontrolled escalation path.

Power Dynamics in the Strait of Hormuz

One of the most prominent manifestations of this imbalance is the failure to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital artery for global energy flow. Continued tensions in this corridor threaten not only the stability of energy markets but also place the credibility of the U.S. as a guarantor of international security at stake. Furthermore, the limited European response, despite attempts to rally within NATO, reflects a decline in allies' willingness to engage in costly military adventures, while simultaneously revealing the limits of U.S. ability to mobilize the international system according to its priorities.

A Negotiation Path Moving Under Pressure, Not Maturity

Despite previous promotions of a postponed or stalled negotiation process, Trump's announcement giving a five-day deadline for reaching an agreement indicates that the conflict has entered a new phase where diplomacy is managed under field pressure rather than the reverse. This step, while not entirely unexpected, reflects an increasing awareness within Washington of the difficulty of continuing an open-ended war without a political horizon, as it reveals an attempt to seize a moment of relative balance before the scales tilt towards further uncontrollable escalation.

However, this dynamic does not necessarily mean that a mature negotiation path has effectively formed. Rather, it suggests the launch of an emergency mediation process aimed at escaping the impasse rather than reflecting an agreement on a sustainable settlement. The conditions that Tehran is said to have proposed, which extend beyond a ceasefire towards a comprehensive halt to the war that spans different arenas, including Lebanon, and involves an Israeli withdrawal, still reflect a commitment to redefine the conflict as a single regional package. This proposal is difficult to reconcile with U.S. calculations seeking a quick achievement, amid continued Israeli momentum towards expanding the war.

Thus, it can be said that the five-day deadline may open a tactical window for de-escalation, but it does not yet rise to the level of a strategic turning point, unless it translates into preliminary understandings that redefine the war's objectives and regulate its pace. In the absence of such, this deadline itself may transform into merely a transient station within a longer escalation trajectory.

The Impossibility of Settlement Amid Goal Imbalances

Conversely, any talk of a settlement, even in its limited form, collides with deep structural contradictions. On one hand, this requires Iranian commitments to control regional escalation and secure vital interests, primarily the maritime corridors, while on the other hand, Washington needs an exit that preserves its strategic image without appearing to retreat under pressure, whereas Israel rejects any substantive constraints on its military operations. Between these conflicting calculations, the opportunities for shaping an actual understanding seem to erode, especially given the nature of aggression that drives Tehran towards greater rigidity rather than flexibility.

Within this landscape, Iran does not appear in a position of victory, yet it certainly is not in a position of defeat. A mix of geopolitical factors, strategic depth, and networks of regional influence grants it the capability to sustain the conflict without collapse, transforming the struggle into a chronic state that is difficult to resolve militarily.

Transformations in the International System

Internationally, this war reveals deeper trends that extend beyond regional borders. The American failure to achieve a swift resolution, or even to impose stable rules of engagement, opens the door for major powers like China and Russia to enhance their roles not through direct confrontation, but by expanding their economic and diplomatic presence, capitalizing on declining confidence in Washington's ability to manage the international order. This does not necessarily mean an imminent end to U.S. hegemony, but it clearly indicates a gradual shift toward a more multipolar system, where the costs of using force rise, and the effectiveness of military resolution as a tool for managing conflicts diminishes.

Israel: Power and the Erosion of Legitimacy

Meanwhile, Israel faces a striking strategic paradox. While it continues to reinforce its military superiority, it is simultaneously experiencing an increasing erosion of its international legitimacy, especially in light of the repercussions of the genocidal war crimes it has committed in Gaza and its sponsorship of settler terrorism in the West Bank. This contradiction between power and legitimacy may, over time, become a genuine constraint on its maneuverability, particularly if the shift in global public opinion continues and circles of skepticism regarding its role as a source of stability expand.

In light of these data, the ongoing war does not seem merely a military confrontation subject to resolution, but rather a transitional moment where the rules of conflict are being reshaped at both regional and international levels. The issue is no longer about achieving a final victory but rather about the ability of various parties to manage the new balances without slipping into total chaos.

Managing Conflict Without Resolving It

Accordingly, the most likely scenario does not involve a decisive end to the war but rather reaching temporary formulas to contain it, redrawing the boundaries of engagement without addressing the roots of the conflict. Amid continued attrition and rising pressures towards de-escalation, a new equation crystallizes: managing the conflict instead of resolving it, containing it instead of ending it.

In this equation, the success of any political path depends on the United States' ability to transform its need to end the war into an opportunity to produce a flexible settlement, and on its readiness to manage the divergence with Israel, which may view any restriction on its strategic movement as undermining its core superiority. It also hinges on Tehran's willingness to translate its resilient position into a negotiating advantage without slipping into excessive escalation that may provoke a broader confrontation. All this does not eliminate the possibility that Trump may suddenly announce the end of the "military operation" against Iran, even gradually, claiming that it has achieved all of its objectives.

In conclusion, this war indicates that the region is heading towards an unstable phase open to multiple possibilities, where conflicts are not resolved as much as they are managed within shifting balances, and files are not closed as much as they are reproduced in different forms. Among a temporary settlement that does not address the causes, and an open-ended attrition that exacerbates risks, the fundamental challenge remains to prevent this conflict from devolving into a comprehensive regional chaos that could exceed its repercussions on the entire international system.

Trump's deadline may only be a tactical pause in a war without victory: a test of the parties' ability to seize a moment of de-escalation, or to slip back into an open-ended escalation path that no one can control the outcomes of.