Experts answer the most difficult question: where is the Iran war going?

Barcelona / London / Washington / JerusalemThis is a compass article. Like the magnetized needle instrument, the purpose of these words is to try to point out where we are. Or, more precisely, where the Iran war is, a strident earthquake that has strained international politics and the economy.

On February 28, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched a joint operation against the ayatollahsTrump voiced the dilemma on Friday, at the White House,The magnetized needles do not know where to point: the two ways out – understanding or attack – are totally different. The dilemma was verbalized by Trump on Friday, at the White House, before boarding a plane to spend the weekend at his Florida mansion: "Do we want to go in and completely obliterate them once and for all? Or do we want to try to reach an agreement? These are the options." Amidst so much uncertainty and plot twists, the only thing that remains clear is that the current stalemate is unsustainable in the long term.

Contacted by ARA, several experts have agreed to undertake a historically risky exercise, and even more so in times of Trumpist chaos: to analyze where the war is heading.

There are three interpretations that are repeated among analysts. The first, that the war is "in suspense", "atrophied", "without a way out", "at a standstill". The second, that this situation of stagnation is the result of a miscalculation by the United States and a well-studied response from Tehran. The third, that at any moment everything can explode again.

Trump's communicative chaos and Tehran's information blockade, which has turned the country into a black hole, add tension to the horizon. It is common for the White House to hint at one thing one day, and another the next. We saw this over the weekend. On Friday, there was some optimism after Iran presented a new peace proposal to the United States through Pakistan. Hours later, Washington rejected it because it did not meet the requested requirements and threatened to "annihilate" the country. On Saturday, the ayatollahs said they were preparing for the reactivation of the war. On Sunday, the President of the United States said he was reconsidering the proposal presented by the Iranians. Tehran assured that it had received an American response and was studying it. Communicative chaos is also strategy.

senior Pentagon officials advised Trump against launching the offensive.the United States and Israel rely on firepower, sanctions, and blockades to extract concessions at the diplomatic table.

"Both sides have incentives to avoid a full-scale war, but the risk of miscalculation remains very high," says Inderjeet Parmar, professor of international politics, City St George’s, University of London, who reiterates that this moment of suspended war is impossible to maintain much longer. Parmar adds elements that, beyond Netanyahu's pressure, Trump's unpredictability, and Tehran's emboldened stance, could lead to more miscalculations: ships still trapped in Hormuz, new clashes between Hezbollah and Israel, actions by the Houthis or pro-Iranian militias in Iraq or Syria.

In the war equation, internal dynamics in each country occupy a relevant space. In Iran, resisting under pressure may strengthen the hardest sectors, but it may also fuel dissent if the economic situation worsens. Recently, moreover, there is talk of rifts and division among the top officials of the ayatollah regime regarding the future of the conflict. In Israel, security demands and elections are pushing to continue degrading Iranian capabilities, but a part of society is tired of the accumulation of war and of having to hide in shelters every so often. And in the United States, the economic impact of the war leads to national pressures but also international pressures. Furthermore, from the outset, a significant portion of the Pentagon's top officials advised Trump against launching the offensive. The street is also talking: 61% of Americans consider it was a mistake to use force in Iran. This is a similar figure to that recorded regarding the Iraq War in 2006 (59%) and also comparable to the rejection that the Vietnam War already aroused in 1971.

"From the beginning, the one most interested in continuing the war is Netanyahu. The Iranians feel like winners and could stop the war right now and sell a dignified role. Trump did not expect this development of the war and now, undoubtedly, wants a quick end and seems interested in a negotiated agreement, even one that allows Iran to claim a partial victory," points out Iranian analyst Mehran Haghirian, an expert in the Persian Gulf and director of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation. 

A lesson in war

Experts also agree in underlining a clear conclusion from these two months of war: having military superiority is no longer a guarantee of strategic victory. Americans and Israelis were bombing Iran for 40 days and achieved tactical successes, but they have not managed to bring down the regime, reopen the maritime passage, or subjugate the ayatollahs at the negotiating table. Tehran has seen how, by leveraging its geostrategic position, it can inflict economic damage with a global impact equivalent to tons of bombs.

"The tides of war have changed completely. The one who is supposedly the strong actor has been surprised by the weak actor," points out Pol Morillas, director of Cidob. In this sense, the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz – and the economic and energy crisis that results from it – has been and is Tehran's strategic philosopher's stone. "Washington finds itself in a delicate situation. Military force does not serve it as planned, because the price to pay for using it is very high. And now, if it opts to escalate the war and, for example, make a ground incursion, this would imply another price increase, a political wear and tear for the government with the midterm elections on the horizon. Trump is strong, but he cannot use all his strength," continues Morillas.

From here Gray presents two possible scenarios: an agonizing one, which ends when one of the two parties gives in because they can no longer withstand more damage; and a more comfortable one where an agreement is reached through a third party and "both sides save face". For example, Gray suggests that if the Chinese were able to mediate an agreement, both the Iranians and the Americans could sell it as a victory. Or at least it would serve to mask the withdrawal.

On Thursday, the Iranian supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, broke his usual silence and said, in a statement: "A new chapter is being written for the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. By the power and strength of God, the bright future of the Persian Gulf region will be a future without the United States and in the service of the progress, well-being, and prosperity of its nations".

Beyond war propaganda – very present on both sides–, who is winning? If it can be said that there are winners.

Daniel Byman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, lowers expectations and maintains that "it is difficult to say who is winning" because each actor is playing different games. According to Byman, for the United States the problem has transcended the battlefield, since "the effects on allies, oil, and external credibility weigh as much or more than the battlefield". In Washington's eyes, withdrawing would be admitting the limits of its power. For Tehran, yielding would call into question its identity of resistance and would suppose a dangerous precedent for its future role in the region, being reconverted at Netanyahu's pace.

Dr. Ahron Bregman, an Israeli historian and political scientist specializing in Middle Eastern conflicts and a former officer in the Israel Defense Forces, goes a little further: "Strategically, Iran emerges as the decisive winner." According to him, none of Washington and Tel Aviv's initial objectives have been met: neither regime change nor the complete neutralization of the nuclear program. "Although the intention was to stop the Iranian nuclear program and significant damage may have been caused, Iran still has 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, enough to produce 11 bombs if enriched to 90%. And, although Israel wanted to dismantle its ballistic missile program, Tehran retains an arsenal capable of sustaining a long conflict against Israel," Bregman summarizes.From the North American and, above all, the Israeli perspective, this reinforces a central conclusion: the Iranian problem cannot be solved in a single military campaign.Shadow movements

But despite the feeling of stagnation, there are movements under the water.

This week, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, traveled to Muscat to meet with the Omanis. Before Pakistan entered the scene as the main mediating country,Oman had been the main player in the negotiations. For years, the Omanis have been acting as intermediaries and, for Gray, the fact that they have returned to negotiations is a "positive" sign.

This week, Araghchi also visited Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The day after the meeting, on Wednesday, Trump and Putin spoke by phone for an hour and a half. However, Gray does not believe that the Russians have much weight in the mediations, but rather trusts more in the role of Oman and China. Both countries suffer the consequences of the blockade of Hormuz. Oman, for obvious reasons – it is on the other side of the sea – and China because it is beginning to see that the strangulation of the maritime passage also threatens the Asian market.

But Morillas warns of another risk. "Political dialogue can move forward, but if the economic situation does not improve with a real reopening of Hormuz, geoeconomics may be more important than geopolitics in the steps to follow in this war". In other words, if the lifeblood of the world economy, oil, does not flow again, diplomatic pleasantries will be of little use.

Indeed, the Strait of Hormuz has never reopened, the economy has been suffocated for weeks and global prospects threaten tragedy and hover over scenarios similar to 2020, when the pandemic confined the world. Trump, who responded to the Iranian blockade with another blockade, let slip on Thursday that Washington is already preparing for a prolonged closure of Hormuz. For months, perhaps. Markets and the pockets of the global population are trembling.

The magnetized needles of compasses also tremble, instruments that began to be used two thousand years ago, precisely, in ancient China, a rival of the United States and, according to experts and analysts, Trump's true obsession that marks his foreign agenda.