The collapse of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran has returned the region to a state of escalation. At the same time, it has revealed that neither side appears to be moving towards an all-out war. Instead, both are preparing for a prolonged confrontation built around mutual pressure and raising the cost of conflict.
Washington believes that limited military strikes and economic sanctions could force Tehran to make concessions. Iran, meanwhile, is relying on its geographical position and its ability to disrupt global energy routes, viewing these as its most effective means of deterrence after the war demonstrated the limits of military power alone.
Analyses published by the Financial Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and Axios broadly agree that the agreement’s collapse was not unexpected. Rather, it resulted from a long-standing crisis of trust between Washington and Tehran, with each side accusing the other of failing to fulfil its commitments. The ceasefire ultimately became little more than a brief pause before confrontation resumed.
Contradictory Decisions
Writing in the Financial Times, Kim Ghattas argues that Washington entered the crisis without a clear strategic vision. What appears from the outside to be a coherent American policy, she argues, is in reality a series of contradictory decisions that have confused allies before adversaries.
Ghattas notes that Gulf states which opposed the war found themselves bearing its security consequences. They were then surprised by a memorandum of understanding that granted Iran significant gains without addressing the issues that concern them most, including ballistic missiles and Tehran’s regional proxies.
She adds that Iran behaved after signing the agreement as though it had emerged victorious, taking advantage of what she described as American confusion. However, this confidence encouraged Tehran to expand its appetite for risk by targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, prompting President Donald Trump to declare the ceasefire over and resume military strikes.
Washington’s Options
According to a report in The Telegraph, the Trump administration currently faces three main options: launch a large-scale war against Iran, continue limited strikes and economic pressure, or return to negotiations under more flexible conditions.
Experts who spoke to the newspaper consider the first option the least likely. A full-scale war could lead to attacks on US bases across the Gulf, plunge global energy markets into turmoil and face resistance from an American public with little appetite for another war in the Middle East.
The second option is considered the most likely. It would involve continued strikes against Iranian military sites and the imposition of additional sanctions while keeping the door to negotiations open.
William Wechsler of the Atlantic Council said policymakers in Washington are not choosing between good and bad outcomes, but between bad outcomes and worse ones. For this reason, they favour a low-intensity conflict that avoids sliding into a comprehensive regional war.
Iran, by contrast, appears to have emerged from the war with a different conclusion. According to another Telegraph report by Akhtar Makoii, the Iranian leadership no longer considers missiles or drones to be its most influential weapons. Instead, it sees geography as the source of its greatest leverage, giving Tehran the ability to influence some of the world’s most important energy arteries.
The Four Pillars of Tehran’s Strategy
The report identifies four main pillars in Tehran’s emerging strategy.
The first is disrupting oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz by targeting vessels, laying naval mines and striking oil production facilities in Gulf states.
The second is expanding the confrontation to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait through its Houthi allies, allowing simultaneous pressure to be applied to two of the world’s most important maritime passages.
The third pillar involves wearing down US forces through asymmetric attacks against American bases across the region. The objective would be to increase the human and political cost of the US military presence, following a model similar to what occurred in Iraq.
The fourth pillar is the expansion of a policy of “strategic ambiguity”, keeping Iran’s adversaries uncertain about the nature, timing and scale of its future responses.
The report also states that Iran has begun rebuilding its air defences and expanding missile and drone production. At the same time, it is adopting a policy of dispersing military stockpiles and facilities to reduce the effectiveness of any future American strike.
A Predictable Collapse
Writing in The Guardian, Sina Toossi argues that the collapse of the memorandum of understanding was a natural result of the historic lack of trust between the two sides.
According to Toossi, Tehran was never convinced that it could secure permanent sanctions relief, while Washington believed Iran was using the Strait of Hormuz to strengthen its regional influence rather than honouring the spirit of the agreement.
He argues that control of the Strait has now become the central issue in the conflict. Iran considers it a fundamental guarantee of its survival in the face of American pressure, at a time when global energy markets are more vulnerable to supply disruption than they have been in previous years.
In the same context, Axios reports that Trump is attempting to maintain two contradictory narratives. He continues to project military strength by publishing footage of strikes on his social media platforms, while simultaneously searching for a political exit from a war that lacks broad support inside the United States.
Experts cited by the outlet believe the US administration is attempting to present itself as willing and able to use military force while avoiding entanglement in a prolonged war.
A New Battle of Deterrence
Taken together, these assessments indicate that neither Washington nor Tehran is currently seeking a decisive military victory. Instead, both sides are attempting to establish a new balance of deterrence.
The United States is relying on limited military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic pressure to force Iran into concessions. Tehran, meanwhile, is betting on exhausting Washington and threatening global energy routes to increase the cost of any future confrontation.
The result is a shift from diplomacy towards attrition, with both sides seeking leverage without crossing the threshold into a war whose military, economic and regional consequences could become impossible to contain.
