Fears of a return to military confrontation between the United States and Iran are increasing, with the escalation of mutual threats, the continuation of the American blockade on Iranian ports, and intensified talk of new strikes that may target nuclear and military facilities and strategic infrastructure. While US President Donald Trump believes that the war can end quickly, indicators issued by American officials warn of the possibility of sliding into a long conflict, amid European and regional diplomatic moves to avoid the expansion of the confrontation.
Trump said on Friday that the United States could end the war with Iran quickly, but he wondered whether it would be better to seek to end it quickly or to let the conflict gradually fade away, considering that Iran is “heading toward collapse.”
He added, in statements to reporters before leaving Washington for Florida: “We accomplished a very good job in Iran.” He continued that the United States will keep Iran in a state of “total paralysis,” stressing that Washington is capable of controlling the country and seizing its oil.
The US President had confirmed, during an election rally in Iowa on Thursday evening, that the war would soon end “one way or another,” in statements that reflect his confidence in Washington’s ability to impose the end course, without clarifying whether this would be achieved through a political settlement or additional military escalation.
On the other hand, US envoy Tom Barrack warned of the possibility of launching a US strike against Iran over the weekend. In response to a question, during Friday’s podcast, about the possibility of an attack during the week, he answered in the affirmative, noting that Trump had provided Tehran with repeated opportunities to reach an agreement, but it chose to use the Strait of Hormuz as a card for pressure and bargaining.
Barak said that the US administration no longer places changing the Iranian regime at the forefront of its goals, and that it has shown a willingness for dialogue at several points. This position indicates that Washington may focus on extracting specific concessions, especially on the nuclear file and navigation security, instead of adopting a declared goal of regime change.
These statements come amid speculation about the possibility of carrying out a new US military operation after the midterm congressional elections, scheduled for November 3, at a time when press reports spoke of preparations for an operation that may last several days and target nuclear facilities, missile and drone storage, and energy infrastructure. According to the information received, there were no confirmations of a final decision to implement this operation, while all reports confirm that the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file constitute two obstacles to the resumption of negotiations between the two parties.
Bet on economic pressure
In parallel with the threat of the military option, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, confirmed that his country is preparing for the possibility of the conflict with Iran continuing for a long period, despite the administration’s hopes that the strikes and economic sanctions will push Tehran to make major concessions.
Waltz said, in an interview with the British newspaper “Financial Times”, published on Friday, that Washington hopes that Iran will return to negotiations seriously, warning at the same time of the possibility that, after a year, the United States will find itself in a state of stalemate with Tehran, without an agreement on its nuclear program or the return of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz to its pre-war levels.
He added that the US President and the US Navy are able to continue the blockade imposed on Iranian ports for the foreseeable future, noting that the administration is working to tighten economic pressures. He stressed that preventing Iran from maintaining highly enriched nuclear materials represents a strategic goal for Washington.
These statements reveal a paradox in American calculations: while the administration talks about the possibility of ending the war quickly, it is also preparing for the possibility of the confrontation continuing without an agreement, while relying on the blockade and economic pressure to weaken Tehran’s negotiating position.
However, the success of this strategy remains linked to Washington's ability to prevent escalation without being drawn into a broader war, and to the extent of Iran's willingness to make concessions in light of continuing military and economic pressures.
Iran restarts missile factories
On the other hand, Tehran seeks to show that it still maintains military capabilities that allow it to respond to any new attack. The American Wall Street Journal quoted officials as saying that Iran has resumed the production of missiles and drones inside underground facilities, and has restarted facilities designated for this purpose despite the strikes it was subjected to.
According to the report, Iran still possesses significant stocks of missiles and drones, although specific numbers are not available regarding the volume of resumed production or the remaining quantities in the Iranian arsenal.
The newspaper also quoted American officials as saying that Iran may have received assistance from Chinese parties in the form of satellite images, which were possibly used to track the locations of American warships. However, this information has not been conclusively confirmed, and the identity of the parties suspected of providing the images or their connection to the Chinese government has not become clear.
In a related context, Tehran warned, according to what the newspaper reported, through public statements and private diplomatic channels, that any resumption of American and Israeli air campaigns may be met with responses that go beyond American bases and warships.
The targets that Iran has hinted at include airports, pipelines, economic facilities, and civilian targets in neighboring countries, as well as threats to expand the scope of responses to include submarine Internet cables.
These messages, according to the report, aim to deter Washington and Tel Aviv from launching new attacks, but at the same time they raise fears that the confrontation will spread to other countries, which may threaten vital infrastructure and the movement of transport, energy and communications in the region.
The newspaper indicated that the United States is working to remove more military personnel and diplomatic personnel from potential danger areas, an indication of continued preparations for the possibility of a widening of the scope of the confrontation.
Tehran clings to a major role in “Hormuz”
The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most prominent axes of conflict between Washington and Tehran, after Iran has restricted navigation traffic in it since the outbreak of the war, while the United States imposed a blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran adheres to a major role in supervising transit traffic through the Strait according to a route it determines, while Washington and other parties reject this proposal, in a dispute that extends beyond the military dimension to the security of global energy supplies and freedom of international navigation.
The strategic location of the Strait gives any new escalation dimensions that go beyond the limits of bilateral confrontation. Disrupting ship movement or targeting energy-related infrastructure may lead to higher shipping and insurance costs, and increase pressure on oil markets and the global economy.
In this context, control over shipping traffic appears to be a mutual pressure card: Tehran uses it to strengthen its position in the face of the blockade, while Washington seeks to reopen the sea lane and limit Iran’s ability to employ it politically and militarily.
Between military resolution and settlement
The American administration faces a complex equation. It seeks to extract concessions on the nuclear program and restore navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but it realizes that the continuation of the blockade and military pressure does not necessarily guarantee an agreement, and may push Tehran to expand its responses.
On the other hand, Iran is betting on maintaining its missile and drone capabilities, and using its geographical location and regional pressure cards to raise the cost of any new attack. However, expanding targeting to include civilian installations or infrastructure in the Gulf states may turn the confrontation into a broader regional crisis, and increase Tehran’s isolation and the risks of exposing it to additional responses.
Between Trump's talk about an imminent end to the war and the warnings of American officials about the possibility of the stalemate continuing for another year, the next path remains dependent on the extent of the two parties' willingness to return to serious negotiations, and their ability to avoid military steps that might make containing the conflict more difficult.
In the absence of confirmed indications of an imminent settlement or a final decision to launch a new attack, the region remains facing two parallel possibilities: a military escalation whose repercussions may expand beyond Iran, or mutual pressure that opens the door to a difficult negotiation regarding nuclear, navigation, and regional security.
