The US–Iran impasse: Who stands to lose more? |
By the end of this month, US–Iran negotiations had reached a near stalemate, following rounds of talks in Islamabad and Muscat that failed to produce any meaningful breakthrough. At the same time, the conflict has been steadily morphing into something closer to a “cold war,” driven less by direct confrontation and more by sanctions and economic pressure. Trump’s decision to pursue a ceasefire, and then extend it, has effectively shifted the burden of the conflict; what was once carried primarily by Israel on the military front has increasingly been transferred to the economic arena, where Washington now bears the real weight of the war.
Since then, Washington has doubled down on this approach, leaning heavily on a policy of “maximum pressure” against Iran, tightening maritime restrictions and squeezing its oil exports in the hope of forcing concessions at the negotiating table. Yet this strategy runs up against a reality that US policymakers either underestimate or choose to overlook. Iran is not a state easily subdued by conventional blockade tactics.
Decades of living under sanctions have honed its ability to adapt, cultivating resilient networks for economic circumvention, as well as a strategic depth and partnerships that extend well beyond the Strait of Hormuz itself.
Decades of living under sanctions have honed its ability to adapt, cultivating resilient networks for economic circumvention, as well as a strategic depth and partnerships that extend well beyond the Strait of Hormuz itself.
Herein lies the paradox of Washington’s approach: in seeking to compel Tehran’s capitulation through economic strain, the United States risks entangling itself in the very trap it set, shouldering the greater cost of a war that shows no clear end.
The sustained pressure prolonging the crisis in the Middle East is now beginning to reverberate inward, into the United States itself and across its network of allies, as disruptions to energy flows and the global economy persist. Even under a ceasefire, these dynamics have produced a grinding war of attrition, not only for Iran but for Washington and its partners as well. The longer this trajectory holds, the more it risks reshaping the international order in ways that run counter to American interests, a prospect Washington cannot afford to ignore. This raises a central question: has President Donald Trump, through this strategy, become the primary loser in a conflict he chose to manage economically rather than resolve politically or militarily?
Within this tangled international landscape, the United States appears to be paying for the war with Iran, and the attritional strain it has produced, through the fraying of its ties with Western allies. Europe, heavily dependent on energy imports, particularly from the Middle East, has found itself especially exposed. The war, coupled with disruptions to navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, has driven up energy costs, heightened the risk of industrial slowdown, and fueled inflationary pressures across the........