Since the ceasefire was announced on 7 April, the war has not truly ended. It has simply shifted from the battlefield to the negotiating table in Islamabad, which has become another arena of conflict, albeit with a lower level of violence. Despite widespread hopes that a historic agreement could bring the confrontation to a close, the available indicators suggest that the chances of successful negotiations remain extremely slim.
The conflict with Iran is not merely a border dispute or a struggle for influence. It is an existential confrontation unfolding across multiple interconnected fronts, making a swift settlement difficult to imagine. Between declarations of victory and the collapse of political will, the region stands on the edge of a precipice, and any agreement reached may amount to little more than a temporary pause before another round of violence.
The Existential Dimensions of the Conflict: A Shared Triple Crisis
To understand the complexity of the current situation, it is necessary to examine the layers of conflict that make surrender or compromise nearly impossible for Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran alike.
First Dimension: The United States Between Defeat and Acceptance of a Multipolar World
Washington now finds itself in a critical position that may be unprecedented in its modern history. It cannot publicly acknowledge its inability to achieve its war objectives, as doing so would undermine its most important asset: its ability to shape, control, and lead states within its sphere of influence through mechanisms of dominance and deterrence.
The extensive network of American military bases around the world, built at the cost of trillions of dollars, has increasingly failed to fulfil its intended strategic role.
In the Gulf region, many American military installations suffered significant damage during the recent conflict. This demonstrated that conventional warfare is becoming less effective against asymmetric strategies based on cruise missiles, drones, and interconnected resistance networks. Fixed military bases are no longer impregnable fortresses. They have become large and vulnerable targets.
As a result, any agreement with Iran would represent an implicit and explicit acknowledgment by Washington that the world is no longer unipolar and that the era of absolute American dominance has come to an end.
Second Dimension: Internal Conflict in Washington and the Future of the Republican Party
The conflict is not only external. It has also become existential for the current administration. The future of the Republican Party is increasingly tied to the outcome of this war.
Failure could trigger a major reassessment of existing policies and encourage the emergence of a new current within the party, similar to developments within the Democratic Party. This trend would oppose the unrestricted flow of American money and weapons to Israel and challenge the traditional political bloc influenced by AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby.
AIPAC itself may experience a decline in influence after being viewed by many policymakers and political elites as having contributed to America’s loss of its position as the world’s sole superpower.
According to this perspective, unconditional support for Israel has drawn the United States into an endless war of attrition and forced it to fight largely alone, without meaningful assistance from its traditional European allies, many of whom declined to participate in the conflict. Such a shift could permanently alter the balance of power in Washington.
Third Dimension: Donald Trump’s Personal Political Future
On a personal level, President Donald Trump is fighting what may be the defining battle of his political career.
Failure in the war would not simply represent a political defeat. It could expose him to legal and political challenges that may ultimately threaten both his legacy and his personal freedom.
Trump invested heavily in a strategy based on maximum pressure and military confrontation. The collapse of that strategy would be viewed as a historic indictment of his leadership. This personal stake makes him more inclined to maintain a hardline position and continue the confrontation, even at the cost of prolonged American exhaustion.
He understands that any agreement which leaves him appearing defeated could mark the end of his political ambitions and potentially much more.
Israel: The Collapse of an Expansionist Vision and Netanyahu’s Reckoning
On the Israeli side, the situation appears equally severe. Israel is also engaged in what is portrayed as a three-layered existential struggle.
First Dimension: The Erosion of Israel’s Strategic Function
The possibility of losing the strategic role for which the state was originally established is becoming increasingly apparent.
The vision of a “Greater Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile”, championed by elements of the far right, has collided with the resilience of Iran and the wider Resistance Axis. Israel is no longer perceived as an untouchable power.
Its decline also threatens its attractiveness as a centre for economic and logistical activity.
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which was intended to terminate at the Port of Haifa and transform Israel into a major global trade gateway, has been effectively frozen by the war and may ultimately be abandoned altogether.
Investment is declining, confidence in the Israeli economy is weakening, and sections of the scientific and technological elite are increasingly seeking opportunities elsewhere. Israel is shifting from the position of a dominant regional power to one primarily focused on defending its existence and securing its borders rather than pursuing expansion.
Second Dimension: The Collapse of the Far-Right Coalition
The religious and nationalist far-right movement, which played a central role in the devastating campaigns carried out in Gaza and southern Lebanon, has become a major obstacle to any political exit strategy.
This faction rejects any retreat and continues to pursue ambitions associated with a repeat of the Nakba.
However, the reality is that these operations failed to achieve their stated military objectives. Instead, they increased Israel’s international isolation and pushed it closer to economic and moral crisis.
Any agreement to end the war would require the emergence of a new Israeli political current willing to acknowledge the failure of expansionist policies and redefine national priorities. Such a shift, however, may take years and could emerge only after an even greater catastrophe.
Third Dimension: Netanyahu’s Political and Legal Survival
The third existential challenge directly concerns Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Like Trump, he is fighting a deeply personal battle. The war became his vehicle for escaping legal troubles linked to corruption cases and for restoring declining public support.
Failure to secure a decisive victory would likely force him from the political stage and could ultimately lead to legal consequences that jeopardise his future.
This personal fear makes him a highly unpredictable actor, more willing to prolong the conflict than acknowledge defeat, even if doing so results in additional military losses and further economic decline.
Iran: A Unified Society Awaiting the Decisive Moment
Iran, meanwhile, views the conflict as an existential struggle involving both the political system and the broader effort of state and society to defend the country’s existence.
Tehran sees the war as a battle for survival, not only for the government but also for Iran’s identity as an independent and sovereign nation resisting Western domination.
Despite economic hardship and previous domestic protests, much of Iranian society rallied around the national cause once the country was perceived to be facing an existential threat.
This internal cohesion, rooted in a culture of resistance and endurance stretching from the legacy of Karbala to the epic traditions associated with Rostam, provides the Iranian leadership with a degree of legitimacy and resilience that Washington and Tel Aviv arguably lack.
Lebanon and Yemen: Resistance Fronts That Remain Active
If this assessment of the conflict is accurate, the likelihood of successful negotiations remains extremely low.
A more realistic comparison can be found in Lebanon, where confrontation continues despite repeated attempts to contain it.
The resistance movement in Lebanon, supported by a deeply rooted social base, also sees itself as engaged in an existential struggle. Withdrawal or retreat from the current stage of conflict would mean forfeiting everything built over decades.
Hezbollah is not fighting solely to support Gaza or recover occupied territory. It is fighting to uphold the principle that the equation of “army, people, and resistance” remains the ultimate guarantor of Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.
Any retreat would be viewed as a decisive Israeli victory, an outcome that its supporters consider unacceptable.
The Most Likely Scenario: Iran’s Need for Another Round of War
Amid this deadlock, a troubling but plausible scenario emerges: the possibility that Iran may conclude that another round of war is necessary to break the stalemate.
Tehran could determine that prolonged negotiations without military resolution primarily serve the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv by providing time to regroup and rebuild their capabilities.
As a result, Iran may opt for significant escalation aimed at creating irreversible realities on the ground and fundamentally reshaping the balance of power across West Asia in favour of itself and its allies.
Such a confrontation could be far more intense than previous rounds and may target locations that have thus far remained untouched, including critical infrastructure across the Gulf region or even European interests through allied networks.
The objective would be to compel Washington and its partners to accept a new regional order: a multipolar system in which American dominance recedes and Israel’s role is redefined as a regional power rather than an aspiring empire.
Conclusion: A Long-Term Conflict
All of these factors suggest that the prospects for successful negotiations remain extremely limited.
The war has not ended, and expectations that it had were largely illusory. What lies ahead is a prolonged confrontation that may continue for years and could enter an even bloodier phase if any party concludes that negotiations are merely a mechanism for delaying the inevitable.
Several questions remain unresolved:
- Can Washington overcome the psychological impact of defeat and acknowledge the emerging reality before it is too late?
- Can Israel transform its leadership and strategic direction before facing deeper internal collapse?
- Will Iran decide that the moment has arrived to deliver a decisive blow capable of reshaping West Asia once again?
The coming days and weeks will be critical.
Either the region slides into a broader war, or all parties recognise that some form of settlement, however difficult, remains unavoidable.
What appears increasingly certain is that West Asia, after this conflict, will not resemble the region that existed before it. Equally significant is the fact that the vision of a “Greater Israel” championed by Netanyahu and Trump has come under intense scrutiny, while regional and international power dynamics continue to move towards a more multipolar order in which each actor occupies a more defined and limited role.
