As the conflict enters its ninth month, the trajectory of the confrontation between the United States and Iran remains deeply uncertain, influenced by a complex interplay of domestic political pressures, regional instability, and stalled diplomatic channels. While reports from the news agency cite senior Iranian officials suggesting that Tehran has deliberately prolonged talks to weaken US President Donald Trump politically, analysts emphasize that the course of the war is governed by multiple converging pressures both within and outside the Middle East.
To better understand what could tip the balance toward escalation or resolution, international experts have identified eight critical factors shaping the current standoff.
First, the US midterm elections and domestic political landscape are central to Washington’s calculus. A Democratic victory in Congress could force Trump to pivot toward domestic concerns and expose the financial toll of the conflict under legislative scrutiny, according to Omid Memarian, an analyst at the Washington-based think tank DAWN. Memarian suggests that Trump might seek a face-saving exit following the vote, though he notes the unpredictability of dealing with an unconventional political figure also elevates the risk of renewed strikes. Conversely, Babak Rezaei Daryakenari, a political scientist at Leiden University, notes that the US president retains broad constitutional authority over foreign policy and military operations, meaning a Republican defeat would not automatically halt further attacks.
Second, political deadlock in Israel complicates the security environment. Israel’s October 27 election concluded without an outright majority for either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition or the camp supporting former military chief Gadi Eisenkot. Memarian warns that this political vulnerability could prompt Netanyahu to take decisive military actions while still in power, creating a particularly fragile transition window. While a potential change in Israeli leadership might alter the timing of confrontations and improve coordination with Washington, experts stress that Israel’s broader security establishment remains firmly focused on countering Tehran regardless of who holds office.
The nuclear impasse remains the most intractable core issue. Washington rejects Tehran’s narrative that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, while the two governments disagree fundamentally on negotiation mechanics. The US demands initial concessions on the nuclear file before talks begin, whereas Iran insists on the prior lifting of economic sanctions and the release of frozen assets. Leila Morrovati, a Finland-based political scientist, describes the nuclear program as the crux of the standoff, serving as both a survival guarantee for Tehran and a strategic red line for Washington.
Control over vital chokepoints and regional proxy dynamics further amplify the risks. Before the conflict began in late February, approximately 20% of global oil shipments transited the Strait of Hormuz. Although Iran has sharply curtailed energy exports through the waterway to exert leverage, analysts suggest that minor naval skirmishes alone may not trigger a wider war unless Washington decides to use them as a pretext for a broader campaign. Meanwhile, Houthi rebels in Yemen continue targeting energy infrastructure in the Red Sea and Saudi Arabia. While Memarian views the Houthis as driven by domestic and pragmatic motivations rather than direct subordination to Tehran, Daryakenari warns that their attacks risk widening the conflict by prompting regional states to forge closer defensive coalitions.
Regional diplomacy involving Qatar, Oman, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia has taken on heightened importance as direct Washington-Tehran channels remain frozen. These nations share a vital interest in ending the hostilities, though Morrovati notes that Washington’s past failure to robustly support its Arab allies could eventually lead them to diversify their diplomatic ties.
Looking ahead, the economic toll of high oil prices, shipping disruptions, and inflation places heavy strain on all belligerents, yet none have reached a breaking point where compromise is viewed as unavoidable. While economic pain acts as an incentive for a settlement, Memarian observes that both sides continue to believe that inflicting further damage will strengthen their negotiating leverage, threatening to transform the confrontation into a prolonged war of attrition.
