To properly understand and analyze the situation we are facing, and to assess the possible scenarios and the strengths and weaknesses of each based on current circumstances, we must first review what has happened.
Let me briefly recap the events. Around 19 months ago, the United States and its regional ally or proxy launched a full-scale attack on Iran, committing all their forces and capabilities to the assault. They pursued what could be described as the ultimate objective of any war: bringing about Iran’s collapse. This meant not only overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, but also breaking up the country and suppressing its civilization. They themselves referred to these objectives at various points. In other words, they sought to exact historical revenge on Iran and did everything within their power to achieve that goal. If, by any chance, they refrained from taking certain actions or using particular weapons, it was not because they did not want to, but because they were unable to.
The outcome of the war was that they failed to achieve any of their declared objectives. In the terminology of warfare, when an aggressor country fails to achieve its stated objectives, the opposing side is regarded as the victor, and victory is attributed to it.
One indication of this outcome can be seen in the current domestic political circumstances in the two aggressor countries. In the United States, Trump and the Republican Party suffered a major defeat, one that few analysts could have imagined. None had predicted that Trump and his party would face such an outcome. Trump himself, his vice president and many prominent American figures, including politicians and political analysts, have said that the war with Iran was the primary cause of this defeat. Had the United States won the war against Iran, one would logically have expected an entirely different outcome.
In Israel, the prime minister, a longtime advocate of military action who has presided over numerous wars during his years in office, now faces a situation in which his party is unable to form the next government. His opponents are also determined to bring down his government. The president of the regime has assigned someone other than the incumbent prime minister to form a government.
These are, more or less, the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.
Another indication of Iran’s victory should also be added to this picture: what happened in Islamabad. It was also unimaginable that the Americans would enter negotiations and make so many concessions to Iran.
What were these concessions? First, the nuclear issue was not discussed at all, even though it had been the main pretext for the US attack on Iran. Second, there was no discussion of what the Americans call Iran’s proxy groups, despite Washington having used this issue as leverage against Iran for decades. Third, Iran’s missile program was not raised, even though it had been another source of pressure on Tehran for decades.
In effect, none of these issues was discussed. Instead, the negotiations shifted toward matters that the United States was expected to address, including the release of Iran’s frozen assets, the lifting of the blockade and several other measures. In return, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
This is the situation we are facing now. Given the circumstances of the two sides in the war, three scenarios can currently be envisaged.
Scenario One: Maintaining the Status Quo
The first scenario is the continuation of the status quo, meaning the current state of neither war nor peace. We are under a blockade, and they are under blockade as well.
One indication of this mutual blockade is the situation that has unfolded. Another reason Trump cited for his defeat after the war was the rise in gasoline prices. The increase in fuel prices was also a consequence of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The other two scenarios are a resumption of the war and negotiations aimed at ending the current impasse. These are the three options before us.
Given the picture I have outlined, a realistic and evidence-based analysis must take into account the equation between the victor and the defeated side, which casts its shadow over all three scenarios. Almost no one around the world believes that the United States and Israel won this war. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of experts in this field believe that Iran emerged victorious.
As a result, Iran’s victory will shape all three possible scenarios.
Maintaining the status quo is almost impossible for the United States. One reason is that the US expended so many weapons and military assets in its attacks on Iran that it is now facing shortages of weapons and ammunition. If the current situation continues, the pressure resulting from these shortages will remain on the United States.
Moreover, Washington will be concerned about becoming embroiled in a similar crisis elsewhere in the world, only to find itself unable to achieve its objectives or facing another failure or defeat.
Another issue is the continued rise in gasoline and diesel prices in the United States. Given that the Republican Party’s defeat was so unexpected, I believe Republicans themselves will be the first to oppose the continuation of the current situation.
Their argument is straightforward: We lost the election because of the war with Iran and the rise in gasoline prices. If this trend continues, we will certainly lose the presidential election two years from now as well. Therefore, we must not allow the status quo to persist.
If the Americans do not want the current situation to continue, they will be left with two options: resuming the war, in other words, entering a new conflict, or turning to negotiations.
Scenario Two: Resumption of the War
The outlook for a new war is far bleaker for the United States than it was at the outset of the previous conflict. No reasonable person can guarantee that if the United States enters another war, it will be able to shift the current balance of power in its favor.
On the contrary, there is evidence and a number of reasons to suggest that the United States could find itself in an even worse position.
