As tensions rise across the Middle East, there is no clear answer to how a widening conflict involving Iran might come to an end. The fighting has expanded beyond conventional battlefields, involving missiles, drones, proxy forces, shipping routes and rising global energy costs.
Recent remarks by Donald Trump suggested that the war could end at a moment of political choosing. In an interview, he said it would be over “when I feel it.” Analysts, however, caution that wars of this scale rarely end through the decision of a single leader.
Marina Miron, a military analyst at King’s College London, said the United States does not have full control over how or when the conflict concludes. While Washington remains a central actor, she noted that its most realistic option may be to reduce its role while presenting the outcome as a strategic success.
Such an approach is shaped not only by military considerations but also by political pressures at home. With elections approaching, the cost of prolonged involvement could become increasingly difficult to justify.
A Managed Exit
One scenario being discussed within U.S. policy circles involves declaring that Iran’s military capacity has been significantly weakened, followed by a gradual withdrawal. In that case, Israel would continue operations, supported indirectly by the United States.
This would allow American leadership to claim progress while limiting further exposure. It would also shift more responsibility onto regional actors without formally ending the conflict.
Israel and the Prospect of a Longer War
Israel, while dependent on U.S. support, is seen as capable of continuing the conflict over a longer period. The intensity of the fighting could decline, but the confrontation itself may persist.
Analysts suggest Israel could move away from large-scale operations and rely more on intelligence-driven strategies. At the same time, its position is not without risk. A reduction in air defense capacity could increase vulnerability to missile attacks.
Israel’s broader objective of weakening Iran’s military structure and leadership remains difficult to achieve fully.
Iran’s Emphasis on Survival
For Iran, the conflict is closely tied to the survival of its political system. Rather than seeking a decisive military victory, its strategy appears focused on endurance and attrition.
Historical patterns show that weaker powers can impose long-term costs on stronger opponents. Iran may also attempt to create divisions among its adversaries, particularly between the United States, Israel and Gulf states.
Even under economic strain, maintaining the current system could be presented domestically as a form of success.
An End Without Resolution
Possible outcomes include a ceasefire, a negotiated settlement or a prolonged stalemate. None of these would necessarily bring a clear conclusion.
Each side could present its own version of victory. The United States could emphasize the weakening of Iran. Israel could argue that it reduced a major threat. Iran could claim it withstood pressure from stronger forces. These competing narratives may coexist without resolving the underlying conflict.