Eighteen days after the outbreak of war between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, the central question in Washington and global markets remains: when will this conflict end?
This issue was examined by the American newspaper Newsweek and the British magazine The Economist. Newsweek outlined three possible scenarios for ending the conflict, while The Economist stated that U.S. President Donald Trump was not prepared for the practical challenges of the war’s trajectory.
Newsweek noted that Trump initially expected the war to last between four to five weeks. However, he later indicated that U.S. objectives had largely been achieved, while leaving open the possibility that the conflict could continue for a longer period.
Linked to the President
The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that the final timeline for ending the war is tied solely to the president, while Trump’s repeated statements about an early victory contradict the continued Iranian missile and drone attacks.
Newsweek explained that the battle is centered on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime passage through which nearly one fifth of global oil exports pass, making control over it the محور of the conflict.
It also pointed to Trump’s attempt to build an international coalition to reopen the strait, targeting Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, and China. However, the European response has been cautious, calling for greater clarity regarding Washington’s objectives before committing to deploying warships.
Within this context, Newsweek identified three possible scenarios for the end of the war:
A Short War and Rapid U.S. Exit
The first scenario, preferred by the U.S. administration according to Newsweek, involves a short and decisive military campaign followed by a declaration of victory.
U.S. and Israeli forces have carried out waves of strikes on Iran, targeting missile bases, naval facilities, and military infrastructure, including sites linked to Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub.
If these strikes succeed in undermining Iran’s ability to threaten maritime shipping and regional allies, Trump could claim that the war’s objectives have been partially achieved and begin scaling down operations within weeks, possibly by early April, according to his initial estimate.
More Complex Than Airstrikes
However, reopening the strait is more complex than conducting airstrikes. Iran possesses naval mines, drones, and missile systems capable of threatening vessels in the narrow passage. Neutralising these threats may require continuous naval patrols and international cooperation, which is precisely what Trump has been attempting to secure from allies.
Newsweek also reported that Goldman Sachs analysis warns that a 90 percent reduction in oil flows through the strait would drive oil prices to record levels if disruptions persist.
Negotiated Truce
The second scenario, according to Newsweek, relies on diplomacy rather than military victory. Despite the intensive strikes, Iran retains the ability to disrupt global energy supplies, giving it strategic leverage.
This influence over the Strait of Hormuz could push external powers, including Europe and China, to encourage negotiations aimed at stabilising shipping routes and reducing the risk of a broader war.
If diplomatic pressure intensifies, the war could end with a fragile ceasefire within several months, allowing each side to withdraw while claiming partial success.
Prolonged Regional Conflict
The third scenario, considered the most dangerous by both Newsweek and The Economist, involves the conflict evolving into a prolonged regional confrontation.
The reports state that Iran has continued its attacks on Gulf states and Israeli targets, and the conflict has already spread beyond its borders, raising concerns about a wider war in the Middle East.
Under this scenario, fighting could continue for months or longer, particularly if Washington expands its objectives to include disabling Iran’s energy infrastructure or destabilising its political system.
U.S. domestic politics, especially with the approach of midterm elections, may also influence the course of the war, while Trump’s inconsistent statements regarding victory have created uncertainty around the administration’s strategy.
Not Prepared
The Economist argues that Trump was not prepared for the practical challenges of reopening the strait. Minesweeping vessels were withdrawn in January, and remaining resources have not been used in active combat operations. This means that any large scale mine clearing effort could take months, and even protecting ships from drones and missiles launched from Iranian coasts is not straightforward.
If the United States fails to reopen the strait by force, Trump may resort to intensifying strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure. This could drive global oil prices higher and benefit Russia through increased energy export revenues.
The Economist’s analysis also points to a dual war dynamic. From a strategic military perspective, the United States and Israel are attempting to destroy Iranian military sites. From an economic perspective, Iran is disrupting normal life in Gulf states and threatening the global economy. This makes control of the strait difficult and increases the likelihood that the war will exceed the timeline initially set by Trump.
Both the magazine and the newspaper conclude that the United States and Israel face a strategic dilemma. The scenario most likely to achieve Washington’s objectives quickly is a short war and early exit, but it faces serious challenges in the Strait of Hormuz.
