The situation in the Persian Gulf is messy. Officially, diplomatic channels between the US and Iran remain open, with US President Donald Trump extending the ceasefire this week. Peace talks, however, are stuck: no new date has been set to resume negotiations in Islamabad, and announcements about talks restarting have so far produced nothing. Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported there are still no plans to negotiate with the US.
Any future talks must still confront Iran’s nuclear program, a decades-long flashpoint with Washington. Negotiators will also have to address the strategic use of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran appears to be trying to turn the waterway into a source of income: a senior Iranian lawmaker cited by Tasnim said the first “toll payments” have already been deposited into Iran’s central bank.
Experts describe the current standoff less as a traditional military conflict and more as a strategic contest over time, influence and resilience. “Both sides are playing a kind of tactical game of patience,” says Middle East expert Hana Voss. Iran, having been attacked twice while engaging in talks, is cautious about negotiations and fears a ploy combining talks with military preparations.
Political scientist Pauline Raabe says Iran is deliberately using its leverage: regarding the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran “is undoubtedly in a strong position — it is currently one of the strongest cards it can play.” Through the strait, Iran can control the flow of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf and exert pressure on the global economy. Voss notes it would take little effort to effectively block the strait; even threats can cause major economic effects as shipping companies pull out and insurers withdraw coverage. Drones and naval mines add persistent risk.
Tactically, Iran holds the upper hand, creating a strategic advantage. Its capability to regularly launch rockets was reportedly underestimated, suggesting the regime has purposely built up its capacities. While wargames may have accounted for the strait’s significance, it is unclear how much that knowledge has influenced actual policy.
The conflict extends beyond military and economic dimensions to ideology. Analysis from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy warns the Iranian regime is prepared to prioritize its ideological mission of regional and religious dominance over the population’s needs. Observers say leaders in Tehran appear willing to impose significant hardships on their own people; fighting has also produced short-term internal consolidation.
Pressure is growing on the US as the war’s duration increases: economic consequences — including rising fuel prices and market insecurity — intensify calls for a diplomatic solution. Tehran, acting with growing confidence, demands concessions such as sanctions relief or release of frozen funds.
Iran also relies on asymmetrical warfare to sustain influence. The US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies notes Tehran can continue to wield significant power through sabotage and cyberattacks even after military setbacks. The Washington Institute outlines possible endgames for the US war in Iran: regime change, Iran agreeing to resolve the nuclear dispute, a “disguised defeat” in which Iran retains elements of its nuclear program and its ability to threaten Hormuz, or an “open defeat” that nevertheless leaves Iran firing weapons until regional pain forces US and Israeli withdrawal.
Ultimately the contest narrows to who can endure longer as political, economic and societal costs grow. Experts like Voss and Raabe assess that time favors Tehran. “Time is working for Iran,” Voss says.
This article was originally published in German.