Could the US-Iran war become a protracted ‘frozen’ conflict? | US-Israel war on Iran News

Two months since the US and Israel launched a joint shock assault on Iran, negotiations appear deadlockedas competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz proceed to disrupt international vitality provides, and the way forward for Iran’s nuclear program stays unresolved.

In a signal of the persevering with standoff, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly on Tuesday stated the US was nonetheless participating with Iran on negotiations however would “not be rushed into making a bad deal,” a day after US President Donald Trump and his prime safety advisers mentioned a new Iranian proposal ‌on resolving the war.

All army choices stay on the desk, regardless of a ceasefire in power since April 8 having paused the battle. Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday warned in opposition to the chance of a “frozen conflict,” the place the essential waterway is used as a strain card amid the chance of violent flare-ups.

The US president has envisioned the chance of suspending a army marketing campaign in opposition to Tehran whereas reserving the possibility of finishing up focused strikes as wanted.

In the absence of a everlasting deal that permits either side to assert victory, analysts say a low-intensity battle interspersed with periodic strikes presents a handy means out – albeit one which prolongs regional instability and international financial disruption.

The price of a ‘frozen’ war

The war between the US and Iran can already be described as “frozen”, however this no-war-no-deal state of affairs comes at too excessive a price for each events, Mehran Kamrava, an professional on Iran at Georgetown University in Qatar, informed Al Jazeera.

“Iran cannot afford to have its ports blocked indefinitely and neither can the US maintain an indefinite blockade of Iran,” Kamrava stated. “For the time being, we might see a short-term frozen conflict, but this cannot continue for several months or years.”

The American overseas coverage suppose tank Quincy Institute estimated that Washington’s prices incurred over the first month of the war have been between $20bn and $25bn. A big-scale floor operation in Iran much like that of Iraq in 2003 would require at the very least 500,000 personnel and a few $55bn a month, or greater than $650bn a 12 months, and the suppose tank warns this could nonetheless be a vital underestimate.

A continuation of the present state of affairs would subsequently have financial advantages in the quick time period, however a simmering battle, with no clear conclusion, would even be costly for the US – each economically and politically.

The US army has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports and vessels since April 13. Last week, it deployed a third plane service strike group with hundreds of elite troops, in the largest buildup since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. More than 10,000 US troops are estimated to have been deployed to the area.

Iran’s personal blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to ships not paying a toll has been felt in the US, the place the common value of gasoline at the pump has reached practically $4.18 a gallon ($1.10 a liter), the highest degree in practically 4 years. This comes upfront of midterm elections in November, for which polls present Trump’s approval scores trending at a low 34 %, in contrast with 47 % when he took workplace for his second presidential time period in January 2025.

Iranian strikes have additionally induced billions of {dollars} in harm to US army property in the area and confirmed ties between Washington and its Gulf allies, which have seen main industrial and vitality websites hit by Iran, in addition to their reputations as protected havens for enterprise broken by the war.

Kamrava stated the US financial system would be capable to soak up the financial shock brought on by the war. “Whether the American political system can afford it is a different question,” he added.

Prolonged versus protracted battle

In Trump’s preliminary projection, the war in Iran was supposed to final “four to five weeks.” Two months into the battle, Chandler Williams, researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), says the extended battle has lasted longer than forecast.

“When a state or a government relies heavily on precision air strike power, it often causes escalation rather than resolution because it doesn’t allow for any off boards, and that’s what we’re seeing right now,” Williams stated.

While a extended battle is normally the product of miscalculation, a protracted one is stirred on by design. “The question now is whether this prolonged conflict is becoming a protracted one,” he added.

Washington is betting on sustained financial and diplomatic strain backed by Trump’s fixed risk to resume strikes to see if it will possibly “finish what air strikes alone cannot achieve,” Williams stated.

For its half, Iran is conscious of the US’s army superiority and has opted for leveraging the Strait of Hormuz till the US decides that a negotiated settlement is preferable. “Iran is betting that the US may not escalate any further, but a truly protracted conflict would be difficult to sustain in the long term,” he stated.

A report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) earlier this month discovered the army escalation to be affecting employment and livelihoods in Iran by means of disruptions to financial exercise, mobility, and provide chains.

Much of Iran’s grain imports cross by means of the Strait of Hormuz, a key international delivery route for Tehran, as properly. Shipping disruptions round the strait have raised issues about delays to grain shipments, the UNDP stated, tightening the home provide and rising meals insecurity dangers in the nation of 90 million individuals.

“In Iran’s case, the calculus is about whether they can withstand that cost while still inflicting the cost of shutting down a significant portion of the global economy, and whether that helps them get to a better deal at the negotiating table,” Williams stated.

‘Mowing the grass’ in Iran

On Tuesday, the US Department of Defense requested $53.6bn for autonomous drones for the 2027 fiscal 12 months, a roughly 24,000 % enhance from final 12 months.

“If the tactics of the conflict shift towards drone warfare and towards a low-intensity conflict, this has lower costs for the attacker but a higher impact for the recipient as we’ve seen in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia,” Michael Kerr, a historian and political scientist at King’s College London, informed Al Jazeera.

Israel, a US ally, has lengthy adopted a technique of attrition in its longstanding conflicts with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Irreconcilable positions of either side have resulted in nominal ceasefire agreements which have finished little to curb army flare-ups.

Israel has typically described its tactic of alternating intervals of quiet with occasional large-scale army operations as “mowing the grass.” The US might go for the similar method with Iran, leaving the area extremely unstable and shattering the Gulf states’ aspiration of renewed stability and financial prosperity.

According to Kerr, the dangers incurred in utilizing this tactic with a state actor with Iran’s drone and missile capabilities are considerably greater. “If you mow the grass [against Iran]what’s to stop Iran from hitting Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and firing drones at American ships every time that happens,” he stated.

Iran, the second-largest nation in the Middle East, holds immense strategic significance on account of its strategic positioning in the Gulf and the Sea of ​​Oman. Kerr stated the West’s expectation that its regional and international ambitions might be “put back into the box through bombing” is destined to fail.

“The idea that Iran can be bombed to accept Israeli regional hegemony through US bombing – I don’t think it’s ever going to work.”