Washington and Tehran: Neither War Nor Peace, For How Long?

Is the war between Washington and Tehran really over, as US President Donald Trump claims? Or should we instead expect a new phase of confrontation that could be the final act of a conflict that has been raging since February 2026?

Many analysts have been asking these questions since the Democrats’ victory in the US midterm elections, but have been unable to offer a clear answer, given how vague the US president’s positions remain.

Donald Trump recently said he no longer needed a deal with Iran, arguing that the economic pressure on Tehran was enough. His secretary of state, Marco Rubio, meanwhile ruled out an immediate resumption of fighting. While emphasizing the “devastating” impact of economic pressure and the naval blockade on Iran, America’s top diplomat did not rule out a strong US response “if Iran crosses certain red lines.” These almost certainly include the risk of assassinations of prominent Americans, a possibility raised by Reuters, which reports that Iranian preparations for such operations are well advanced. Washington took the threat seriously enough to warrant relocating Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Neither war nor peace

A state of neither war nor peace thus continues to prevail. Yet several military, political and diplomatic signals point to mounting tensions in the region. The sidelining of Vice President JD Vance, who opposes war with Iran and favors a diplomatic solution with Tehran, may say a great deal about the US president’s mindset.

During a podcast with American journalist Stephen A. Smith on Friday, Trump reiterated that he had told JD Vance the previous day that a deal with Tehran was “no longer necessary” and that the vice president should now “focus on corruption and crime in cities and states controlled by the Democrats.” “That era [of negotiations] is long over. We have their money, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we control their strait,” he said, while repeating that the war “could end very soon.” How? Donald Trump continues to keep his intentions unclear.

Some have interpreted this reshuffling of responsibilities as a sign that the US president wants to prioritize a containment strategy: maintaining the naval blockade, securing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, carrying out occasional strikes on Iranian facilities and sustaining the military threat without necessarily launching a large-scale offensive.

But could this strategy prove costly in the long run for a president desperate for a win? Donald Trump himself acknowledged in an interview with Salem News on Thursday that if “the Iranian lunatics” were still in power at the end of his term, it would be “a defeat” for him. He also warned that he would not hesitate to launch fresh strikes against Iran if “things took a turn for the worse.”

Iranian leaders, for their part, have confirmed in recent days that indirect talks mediated by Qatar have stalled, pending what they say is a US response to their “conditions.” The decision to sideline Vance, whom Tehran sees as the American interlocutor most likely to reach a compromise, was undoubtedly an answer the Iranians had not expected. Despite their defiant statements, Iranian leaders need a deal that would ease the economic pressure choking their country.

A warning strike

The attack on a U.S. radar system in Bahrain, for which Iran’s Revolutionary Guards claimed responsibility on Friday, can thus be seen as both retaliation and a warning to Washington, especially since it was the first strike on a Gulf country since early September.

Tehran has not ruled out renewed Israeli-U.S. strikes and repeatedly insists that it is militarily prepared to counter them. It must now keep a close eye on the diplomatic and military dynamics between Washington and Tel Aviv.

Mossad director Roman Gofman is in the United States for talks with CIA chief John Ratcliffe and White House officials. He is also due to travel to Miami to meet U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff.

Meanwhile, Vice Admiral Curt Renshaw, commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, is in Israel for talks that focused, according to an Israeli military statement, on “naval coordination, intelligence sharing and securing maritime routes.”

Also in Israel, outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot, who has been tasked with forming the next government, held their first meeting on Thursday. Security issues were on the agenda, notably the wars in Lebanon and Gaza and, of course, Iran.

These consultations do not necessarily mean that a military operation against Iran is being planned, but they do show that Tel Aviv and Washington are preparing for every eventuality.

The nuclear issue

The risk is all the greater because the nuclear issue remains unresolved. In its quarterly report to member states, seen by Reuters, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) openly deplores its lack of access to certain facilities. The IAEA says it is “increasingly concerned,” particularly about an underground uranium enrichment plant in Isfahan. Iran declared the facility in 2025 but has not allowed the agency to inspect it, according to the confidential report released on Friday. “The agency does not know the exact location of the IFEP, its safeguards status, or whether nuclear material is present at the facility,” the IAEA said, referring to the Isfahan Fuel Enrichment Plant (IFEP).

These uncertainties surrounding Iran’s nuclear facilities could give Donald Trump a pretext to launch targeted strikes, or even a large-scale operation billed as decisive, against the Islamic Republic, which continues to pursue a hard-line policy.

Its supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has instructed the country’s officials to end the state of “neither war nor peace,” Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian announced on Monday, according to the Tasnim news agency. What exactly does this order mean? It is yet another question among the many that remain unanswered, fueling all manner of speculation about the outcome of the conflict between Iran and the United States.