The Iran-US War: How Could it End?

Analyses often miss the mark. We tend to drift into an excess of objectivity and a lack of imagination, or vice versa. At times, we even mistake our own desires for reality. It is a sobering fact that neither the most tragic events, nor their ultimate outcomes, were ever foreseen by even the most seasoned analysts. Only a few enlightened minds proved visionary, yet they were rarely heard within the high corridors of power, mired as they were in political, financial, and economic affairs.

The Catalyst of the Two World Wars

Few predicted the First World War. No belligerent truly desired it, especially following the various agreements and the carving up of global spheres of influence among the great powers of the era. Analysts, convinced that such a conflict could never be repeated and that Germany had been subdued for good, branded it the “War to End All Wars.”

Twenty years later, Germany controlled Europe through a second, even more devastating conflict, and very nearly dominated the world were it not for American intervention. The key to the German renaissance and its military superiority lay in technology. The same was true on the eve of the First World War: the world was in the throes of an industrial and technological revolution. This shift birthed unprecedented weaponry–tanks, combat aircraft, all-metal naval fleets, oil-powered warships replacing coal, recoilless guns, and semi-automatic rifles. The arms race that followed acted, in turn, as the catalyst for both World Wars.

The 21st Century: Weaponry Within Everyone’s Reach

In terms of weaponry, the global landscape today is not so different from that of the early 20th century. The difference is that we have now entered the age of drones, smart missiles and shells of all kinds, high-precision radar, stealth aircraft and missiles, missile defense systems, nuclear weapons, combat robotics, electromagnetic tools, and cyber technologies.

These capabilities are no longer the exclusive domain of the Great Powers; today, they are available to nations such as Ukraine, North Korea, and Iran. The accessibility of such technology encourages bellicose regimes to become more defiant, while providing relatively weaker nations, like Ukraine, with the resilience to resist far superior powers.

No one foresaw the Hamas offensive from Gaza in October 2023. Bolstered by its locally-produced missiles and drones, its makeshift flying machines, and its technologically agile fighters, the movement was able to temporarily occupy southern Israel.

On the eve of the current conflict, it seemed clear that Iran could no longer rely on its regional allies–notably Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi Hashed al-Shaabi–as these groups had been weakened by fifteen months of war with Israel. Furthermore, Tehran itself, having suffered significant damage to its military and nuclear potential during the “12-Day War” in June 2025, was considered neutralized–especially as it was then engaged in nuclear talks with the United States.

These assumptions proved erroneous. While negotiating, Iran was simultaneously replenishing its own arsenal of drones–whose efficacy has been proven in Ukraine–alongside sophisticated ballistic missiles, high-precision cruise missiles, supersonic anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, and multi-warhead missiles with a range exceeding 2,000 km. This buildup bolsters the regime’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and paralyze navigation in the Arabian Gulf.

In the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran did not hesitate to sow naval mines in the Strait, leading to a devastating American strike on its navy to ensure free passage. Today, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have demonstrated their expertise in deploying a complex combination of surveillance radar, drones, suicide boat-drones, surface-to-sea missiles, midget submarines–of which Iran possesses at least 18, all notoriously difficult to detect–and the naval mines cited in recent US reports.

Two Conditions to End the War

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Tehran is becoming a reality, despite the significant loss of the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities. The Iranians retain sufficient, if limited, technological means–such as mines and drones–to block the passage. Yet, keeping the Strait open remains a vital strategic interest for the United States. At this stage of the conflict, President Donald Trump’s future depends on his ability to safeguard this interest: if he appears deterred by Iran, it will trigger a global geopolitical earthquake and a political crisis within the United States.

Another technological consideration with grave geopolitical repercussions: Iran, according to its own officials, continues to hold 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, well-shielded from American surveillance. The country still possesses centrifuges capable of enriching this uranium to 90%–the threshold for weaponization. The danger is not necessarily the launch of a nuclear bomb via an Iranian missile. Rather, it lies in the fact that Tehran–having previously sponsored terrorist attacks, being allied with militias experienced in such acts, and reportedly sheltering Al-Qaeda operatives–could, in a gesture of desperation, transfer these fissile materials to organizations that would use them for a new 9/11, even more devastating than the first.

These factors make a “whimper” of an ending to this conflict unlikely. Iran is fighting for its survival, waging a psychological war to project an image of defiance and victory, while President Trump demands nothing less than Tehran’s total surrender.

This conflict can only end in one of two ways: a total “Clausewitzian” victory by the United States–a costly endeavor by any measure–or negotiations that force Iran to relinquish its highly enriched fissile materials and dismantle the capabilities that threaten the global economy via the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In the meantime, the war grinds on, and Iran grows increasingly weak.