The situation in the Persian Gulf remains tense and uncertain. While diplomatic lines between the US and Iran technically stay open — President Donald Trump recently extended a ceasefire — substantive negotiations have stalled. No new date has been formalized to resume talks in Islamabad, and reports of an imminent restart have so far come to nothing. Iran’s Tasnim news agency has even reported there are currently no plans to negotiate with Washington.
Any resumed diplomacy would have to tackle two central issues: Iran’s nuclear program and Tehran’s growing strategic influence over the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials appear to be treating the strait increasingly like an economic and political tool. Tasnim cited a senior lawmaker saying the first “toll payments” related to the waterway have already been credited to Iran’s central bank.
Observers describe the current standoff as less a conventional shooting war and more a contest of endurance and influence. Middle East analyst Hana Voss says both sides are engaging in a tactical game of patience: each side gauges risks and waits for the other to make costly moves. Iran, which says it has been attacked twice while negotiating, is wary of combining talks with hidden military plans.
Political scientist Pauline Raabe argues that control of the Strait of Hormuz is one of Tehran’s most potent bargaining chips. The strait sits at the throat of Persian Gulf oil and gas exports, so even the threat of disruption can ripple through global markets. Voss notes that shutting or seriously constraining traffic would not require enormous resources; the mere threat prompts shippers to reroute and insurers to raise or withdraw coverage. Persistent hazards such as drones and naval mines can sustain that pressure over time.
Militarily, Iran has positioned itself to exploit this leverage. The regime’s ability to launch rockets and conduct maritime operations appears to have been intentionally expanded; some analysts say those capabilities were underestimated by foreign planners. Whether and how that operational reality has shaped policymaking elsewhere is less clear.
The dispute also carries an ideological edge. Analysis from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy suggests Iran’s leadership prioritizes its regional and religious ambitions even when doing so imposes severe costs at home. That willingness to accept domestic hardship can, at least temporarily, help the regime consolidate internally.
Pressure on the United States grows as the conflict drags on. Economic fallout — rising fuel prices and market uncertainty — fuels public and political calls for a negotiated solution. Tehran has used this moment of leverage to press for concessions, including sanctions relief and access to frozen funds.
Beyond conventional forces, Iran relies on asymmetric tools to maintain influence. The US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Tehran can continue to project power through sabotage, cyberattacks and other irregular means even after suffering kinetic setbacks. The Washington Institute sketches a range of possible outcomes: outright regime change, a negotiated settlement over nuclear issues, a “disguised defeat” where Iran keeps parts of its nuclear program and retains the ability to threaten Hormuz, or an “open defeat” that still leaves Iran capable of inflicting regional pain until outside forces withdraw.
At its core, the confrontation is increasingly a question of endurance: which side can better absorb the political, economic and social costs as they mount? Analysts such as Voss and Raabe believe time currently favors Tehran. As Voss puts it, in this strategic duel, patience is a weapon — and for now, it is on Iran’s side.
Originally published in German.