As US President Donald Trump says the war with Iran will end “very soon,” he has also raised the level of threats, warning Tehran that it will receive a “tough lesson.” The contrasting messages raise questions over whether Washington is preparing for a political settlement to end the confrontation, or using conciliatory language as cover for continued military and economic pressure.
The statements come as negotiations face setbacks and disagreements deepen over Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz, while disruptions to oil supplies push energy prices higher. The US administration therefore faces a difficult equation: achieving its stated objectives while avoiding the costs of an open-ended war.
According to separate assessments by political and security experts speaking to Al-Ghad, Trump’s statements do not provide conclusive evidence that the war is nearing an end. Instead, they reflect a strategy combining negotiations, threats and economic pressure aimed at pushing Tehran to make concessions.
Washington remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and is demanding restrictions on its nuclear program and guarantees for freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran, meanwhile, insists on its nuclear rights while demanding the easing of economic restrictions and guarantees that would prevent the war from resuming.
The experts said these differences make the path toward a comprehensive agreement fraught with obstacles, although opportunities for a settlement remain.
Between settlement and escalation, they said the scenario of continued “no war, no peace” remains possible, with negotiations kept open while economic and military pressure continues. Such an approach, however, would not resolve the crisis but prolong uncertainty and leave the region and energy markets exposed to continued risks.
They pointed to three possible paths: a phased settlement that reduces tensions and safely reopens the Strait of Hormuz; continued confrontation within fluctuating limits; or a new military round if negotiations collapse.
Prospects for an End to the War
Commenting on the implications of Trump’s statements about the war nearing an end, political expert Dr. Mohammad Qatatsheh said the president’s conflicting remarks about ending the war with Iran or potentially resuming it reflect the widening gap between Washington and Tehran and the difficulty of reaching a political settlement amid continuing disagreements over Iran’s nuclear file and the outcome of the military confrontation.
Qatatsheh noted that the United States faces military challenges, including shortages of some munitions and interceptor missiles, according to US military analysts, limiting Washington’s options for escalation.
He said Trump cannot sustain the “no war, no peace” situation indefinitely, amid criticism inside the United States that Iran has not suffered a decisive defeat and has not signed an agreement ending the confrontation on US terms. Uncertainty also remains over the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium and the locations where it is stored.
Qatatsheh ruled out Trump being able to launch a new attack without considering its consequences, even if the mission were assigned to Israel. Any Israeli strike could trigger an Iranian response, placing the US administration under domestic pressure, particularly from conservatives and the Republican Party’s right wing, which supports Israel.
He stressed that predicting the course of the war has become extremely difficult given Trump’s continuingly divergent statements, warning that an unresolved confrontation threatens the global economy at a time when energy markets are facing growing disruptions and rising prices that have affected American consumers.
He added that the US administration is under pressure from parties pushing for military escalation, whether through intensified airstrikes, attacks on energy facilities or attempts to seize strategic sites. Iran, meanwhile, has threatened to target energy facilities in Gulf states if its vital infrastructure is attacked.
Qatatsheh warned that such a scenario could trigger sharp increases in oil prices and worsen the global economic fallout, citing previous forecasts that oil could potentially reach $200 a barrel.
Looking ahead, Qatatsheh said maintaining a “no war, no peace” situation could work in Iran’s favor. Washington is betting that economic pressure on Tehran will fuel domestic protests and weaken the regime.
He noted that the decline in the value of Iran’s currency and rising inflation are part of the pressure being exerted, while the US administration is relying on time to achieve its objectives without becoming involved in another large-scale military confrontation.
The next phase therefore remains open to several possibilities, ranging from continued economic and military pressure to a return to direct escalation or limited political understandings, amid the complexities of the nuclear issue and the overlapping regional and international interests.
Signs of a Possible Settlement
Assessing possible scenarios for the course of the war, expert Dr. Bashir Al-Daajeh said Trump’s statements about the war with Iran nearing an end do not necessarily mean that a political settlement is close. Instead, they may form part of a US strategy combining negotiations with military and economic pressure to push Tehran into accepting American conditions.
He stressed that wars do not end through statements but through clear agreements containing mutual commitments and guarantees preventing renewed confrontation.
Al-Daajeh said opportunities for a settlement remain as communication channels and international mediation continue, but they face fundamental disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions and economic restrictions, and security guarantees sought by Tehran to prevent the war from resuming.
He said overcoming these differences requires a phased settlement beginning with a halt to attacks and securing maritime navigation, alongside reciprocal steps on economic restrictions, before moving on to the nuclear issue and other outstanding matters.
At the same time, Al-Daajeh warned that continued mutual threats and stalled negotiations would keep the possibility of military escalation alive. US air and naval superiority alone does not guarantee an end to the war under stable political terms, given Iran’s ability to use unconventional means to raise the cost of confrontation and threaten maritime traffic.
He said any major maritime incident or strike causing significant casualties could trigger a chain of responses that would be difficult to contain, potentially expanding the conflict across the region.
Al-Daajeh noted that the Strait of Hormuz is a pivotal factor in determining the course of the war because of its importance to global oil and gas supplies. He warned that continued disruption to navigation or attacks on energy facilities would drive up fuel, transportation and insurance costs and increase inflationary pressures on global economies, including those in the region and Jordan.
He stressed that restoring safe and stable navigation would be a key test of the seriousness of any agreement, as declarations ending the war would not be enough as long as ships remain threatened and maritime risks persist.
Regarding domestic pressure in the United States, Al-Daajeh said the approaching congressional midterm elections could increase pressure on the Trump administration to contain the costs of the war and its economic consequences, particularly amid rising energy prices and growing opposition to continuing the confrontation.
However, he stressed that electoral considerations alone cannot predict a decision to end the war, given that the US position is tied to calculations involving Iran’s nuclear program, regional security and military alliances, as well as continued preparations for the possibility of renewed operations.
Al-Daajeh said the next phase would remain open to two main paths: a phased settlement based on a ceasefire, maritime security and the beginning of efforts to resolve political and nuclear disputes; or renewed escalation resulting from stalled negotiations and the continued gap between the two sides’ demands.
He stressed that the real indicator that the war is nearing an end would be the transformation of statements into written agreements and verifiable commitments that ensure military operations cease, maritime routes stabilize and renewed confrontation is prevented, rather than relying solely on political declarations that do not change realities on the ground.
A Multi-Track Strategy
Regarding the prospects of reaching a political agreement, Dr. Khaled Shneikat, head of the Jordanian Association of Political Science, said Trump’s remarks about the war with Iran nearing an end do not indicate that a political settlement is imminent. Rather, they form part of a multi-track strategy combining negotiations, military threats and economic pressure to push Tehran into accepting US conditions.
Shneikat said Trump is seeking to achieve a package of objectives, including ending Iran’s nuclear program, changing Tehran’s regional behavior, guaranteeing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and limiting its ties with regional allies.
Iran, meanwhile, insists on its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, the release of its frozen funds, changes to existing arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz and an end to the war on the various fronts. This reflects the widening gap between the two sides and reduces the prospects of reaching an agreement soon.
Shneikat said the continued divergence could prompt Trump to consider another round of military operations, including strikes against specific targets based on an updated target list, either directly or through Israel, while maintaining the economic blockade on Iran and relying on time to weaken its negotiating position.
Military options are likely to remain on the table in the next phase, with the possibility that they could be postponed until after the congressional midterm elections to avoid their impact on US public opinion. This assessment is based on continued preparations by the US military establishment, including updating target lists and preparing plans for new operations against Iran.
Shneikat said the prospects for both settlement and escalation remain open as Trump combines negotiating rhetoric with military threats. He stressed that determining the course of the war will ultimately depend on the willingness of both sides to narrow the gap between their demands and on whether economic and military pressure can alter their calculations in the next phase.
Source: Al-Ghad
