The conflict between the United States and Iran, initially expected to conclude swiftly, has dragged on without a clear endpoint in sight. The world is now watching closely: could this confrontation reach a turning point?
Trump’s latest signals have been firm. He stated he is at a decision-making juncture, with significant developments imminent, and issued a warning to Iran to exercise restraint. Three options remain on the table: reaching an agreement, maintaining economic and energy sanctions, or escalating military operations on a large scale. Yet in practice, these paths are being pursued simultaneously—naval blockades continue, diplomatic channels remain open, and military readiness is not withdrawn. This deliberate ambiguity itself constitutes a form of deterrence.
What is most pressing for the White House is domestic inflation. Gasoline and diesel prices remain elevated, with diesel particularly consequential—the rising cost of trucking will be passed through to retail shelves, while aviation fuel will erode profit margins.
A second pressure point lies in Washington. An impasse characterized by neither war nor negotiation cannot endure indefinitely, especially with midterm elections approaching. A narrative of de-escalation is needed before voting, which explains Trump’s repeated assertions that hostilities are nearing conclusion, and Iran’s apparent willingness to engage in dialogue.
No formal summit has been announced, but the absence of public confirmation does not imply no contact. Trump is scheduled to meet leaders from several Gulf states—nations hosting U.S. military bases, having suffered missile attacks from Iran, and bearing the economic burden of disrupted shipping. Post-conflict arrangements directly affect their interests.
The New York meeting, on the surface a bilateral discussion between Washington and Tehran, is underpinned by at least four parties present behind the scenes.
Three scenarios are likely moving forward.
First, a diplomatic breakthrough during the UN General Assembly, announcing a framework agreement—ceasefire, resumption of maritime traffic, and a signal of conflict winding down ahead of elections. This outcome best aligns with the interests of all three parties and carries the highest probability.
Second, negotiations proceed without resolution—dual tracks maintained. Contact occurs in New York, but no announcement is made; sanctions and deterrence persist. The uncertainty is deliberately prolonged past the election, but at the cost of sustained oil market risk premiums.
Third, miscalculation leads to escalation—a major attack in the Red Sea or Persian Gulf triggering cascading consequences, reactivating military options. This scenario is least likely but carries the greatest potential for damage.
The focus of this conflict has shifted from battlefield dynamics to timelines, oil prices, and diplomatic maneuvering during the UN General Assembly. The stage is set. Now, it depends on how the first move is played.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1877015154802711/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.