The United States is believed to be discussing a second round of ceasefire talks with Iran to coincide with the arrival of a Pakistani delegation in Tehran.
A two-week ceasefire remains in force for now after more than twenty hours of talks between the US and Iran – hosted by Pakistan – ended on Sunday without achieving significant progress.
Just one day after those inconclusive discussions, President Donald Trump announced what he described as his new strategy toward Iran that includes a blockade of Iranian ports.
How should we interpret this initial failure to reach an agreement and the prospect of future talks? Are Iran and the United States heading toward a controlled escalation or an inevitable drift into a larger war?
We present four possible scenarios for what could happen next.
1. A fragile ceasefire as a “tactical pause”
After weeks of fighting, the ceasefire between the US and Iran seemed to indicate a willingness to contain the crisis. However, from the beginning it has been surrounded by ambiguities.
Differences in the interpretation of the terms – including their geographical scope, the types of targets covered and even the definition of a “ceasefire violation” – have led some observers to view the agreement as more of a tactical pause than a sustainable framework.
“The chances of reaching an agreement were close to zero from the beginning, once the conflict began,” says Behnam Ben Taleblu, a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based bid tank.
“This is a set of principles, positions and policies over which the United States and the Islamic Republic have disagreed for years and, in the short term, the war has not only failed to reduce these differences, but has intensified them,” he told BBC Facts Persian.
Meanwhile, contradictory statements from officials on both sides have accentuated the fragility of the situation.
While officials in the Islamic Republic speak of repeated violations of the ceasefire, the United States and Israel interpret their own commitments more narrowly.
This divergence in narratives has, in practice, deepened mistrust and raised doubts about the durability of the armistice.
If efforts to return to the negotiating table fail to produce results, the ceasefire is likely to be little more than a means to buy time, allowing the parties to pause, recover, regroup, reassess their positions and prepare for the next phase.
This scenario becomes more believable if one party concludes that it is deriving little benefit from the real situation and that a significant increase in pressure is required.
The United States, for example, could consider attacking critical infrastructure: power plants, bridges or energy facilities as a viable option.
While such attacks could generate appreciable pressure in the short term, they would carry broad humanitarian and economic consequences, and could provoke a stronger response from Iran.
At the same time, Israel, skeptical of the negotiations, is likely to become an influential figure.
“Israel could resort to actions such as assassinating Iranian individuals and figures, including those involved in the negotiations,” said international relations researcher Hamidreza Azizi.
“Donald Trump’s stated policy of blocking the Strait of Hormuz increases the risk of confrontation, even without the parties necessarily intending to provoke it,” he added.
While the possibility of escalation cannot be ruled out, its potentially high costs – such as the triggering of a broader regional conflict and global economic pressure – could make this scenario less feasible, at least in the short term.
2. A “shadow war”
One scenario – perhaps one of the most likely – is a return to a form of confrontation that could be described as a “controlled escalation.”
This would imply that the conflict does not reach the level of a full-scale war, but that the parties do not completely refrain from resorting to military action either.
This could entail the continuation of limited attacks against infrastructure, military targets or even supply lines.
The role of interposed actors (or proxies) would then acquire greater relevance.
An intensification of activity by groups aligned with Iran – whether in Iraq or in the Red Sea – coupled with greater US pressure on such networks could expand the geographical scope of the conflict without directly increasing its intensity.
Some analysts describe this scenario as a “shadow war.”
“Both sides want to use their options and pressure mechanisms to influence the other without entering into a full-scale war,” Hamidreza Azizi told BBC Facts Persian.
“If the ceasefire is violated, the probability that Iran will take further action through its allied forces, particularly in Yemen, is estimated to be high,” he added.
However, this scenario is not without risks.
As tensions rise, so does the danger of miscalculation, and while neither party intends to escalate the conflict, a single misjudgment could escalate it to an uncontrollable level.
3. Discreet diplomacy continues
Despite the failure of the talks in Pakistan, it is not yet possible to conclude that diplomacy has exhausted its course or that negotiations have been ruled out.
Pakistan, as host of these talks, is likely to continue its efforts in the coming days to encourage Tehran and Washington to reach an agreement, serving as an intermediary to convey messages between both sides.
At the same time, some traditional mediators – such as Qatar, Oman and even Saudi Arabia and Egypt – could spring into action over concerns that the conflict is going out of control, acting as channels of communication and seeking to avoid a sudden escalation of the crisis.
However, the key point is that any progress on this path depends on reducing the important gaps that separate the two sides.
The United States’ 15-point proposal and Iran’s 10-point counterproposal suggest that both sides continue to operate from positions that prioritize imposing their own frameworks, rather than seeking a middle ground.
Thus, although a new round of talks is possible, expecting a quick and comprehensive agreement seems unrealistic, at least in the short term.
4. Sustained naval blockade
The president of the United States has announced that the country’s Navy intends to impose a maritime blockade on Iran, preventing any ship or tanker from transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
It has also threatened to intercept in international waters any vessel that pays transit fees to Iran to cross the strait, a strategy that appears aimed at depriving Iran of its oil revenues, suffocating its economy and, at the same time, hitting the United States’ most important rival, China, as a major buyer of Iranian oil.
“A maritime blockade of the Islamic Republic’s ports could be extremely effective if sufficient intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance resources are allocated,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, highlighting Iran’s extensive coastline.
“The practical result of such a measure would be to deprive the government of its ability to export its important commodity,” he added.
However, other analysts pointed out the considerable costs that such a policy could entail for the United States, by bringing its military forces closer to Iran and exposing them to greater vulnerability to possible attacks.
Additionally, for the idea to be effective, naval forces would have to remain deployed near Iran’s borders for an extended period, which would incur substantial costs.
Maintaining such a policy could also trigger a rise in global oil and energy prices, while increasing the likelihood of an intervention by the Houthis to disrupt the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which could further raise oil prices.
Structural instability: the new order in the region?
Ultimately, what emerges from these scenarios is that the region has entered a phase in which the line between war and peace is more blurred than ever.
The failure of the talks in Pakistan does not mean the end of diplomacy nor does it mark the definitive beginning of a larger war. Rather, it points to the persistence of a “gray zone” situation.
“Although both parties would like this conflict to come to an end, this does not seem feasible in the short term,” says Hamidreza Azizi.
In the real environment tactical decisions, security issues and even minor events on the ground can have disproportionate effects on the popular trajectory of the crisis.
This has led many analysts to speak of “structural instability” in the region, a condition in which the rules of the game are not fully defined and whose outcome is unpredictable.
Under such circumstances, perhaps the most accurate description is that Iran and the United States have entered a phase in which war and negotiations are taking place simultaneously.
Both sides continue to resort to military tools, while keeping diplomatic channels partially open.
click hereto understand more stories from BBC Facts World.
Subscribe hereto our new newsletter to receive a selection of our best content of the week every Friday.
You can also follow us on YouTube, instagram, TikTok, x, Facebookand in our new whatsapp channel.
And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.
- Why the naval blockade of Iran is a risky move by Trump (and what role China can play to make it work)
- What is the naval blockade imposed by Trump on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz that came into force this Monday?
- “Irresponsible and dangerous”: China’s criticism of the blockade imposed by the US on Iran’s ports
