The war between the United States and Iran, which began on 28 February 2026, has entered its seventh month with neither side achieving a decisive political or military victory.
What Washington initially expected to be a relatively short military campaign has developed into a costly and dangerous confrontation with consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.
The conflict has affected security across the Middle East, disrupted concerns over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, intensified pressure on Iran’s economy and created fresh uncertainty in global energy markets.
The central question is no longer simply which side can inflict greater military damage. It is whether Washington and Tehran can find a political formula that allows both sides to step back without appearing to surrender.
The beginning of the war
The conflict began on 28 February, when US and Israeli forces launched coordinated military strikes against Iran. The campaign targeted Iranian military infrastructure and aimed to weaken Tehran’s strategic capabilities, particularly its missile and nuclear-related programmes.
The opening phase of the war delivered a major shock to Iran’s political and military establishment. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during the conflict, while his son and successor was seriously wounded, according to reports published during the war.
Despite the scale of the initial attacks, Iran’s governing structure did not collapse.
Instead, Tehran reorganised its leadership and shifted towards a strategy of prolonged resistance. This became one of the defining realities of the conflict: the United States possessed overwhelming conventional military power, but Iran retained the ability to survive, retaliate and impose costs on its adversaries.
Iran expands the battlefield
Iran’s response was not based on matching American military power aircraft for aircraft or ship for ship. Instead, Tehran relied on asymmetric warfare.
Its principal tools included missiles, drones, naval operations and threats to military installations and shipping routes across the wider Middle East.
The objective was to demonstrate that even if Iran suffered extensive damage, the United States and its allies could not conduct military operations without paying a significant strategic and economic price.
The Strait of Hormuz quickly became the most sensitive theatre of the conflict. The narrow waterway is one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Any disruption there affects oil markets, shipping costs and global inflation.
By maintaining the ability to interfere with shipping, Iran turned geography into one of its strongest strategic advantages.
At the same time, the United States strengthened protection of its military installations and increased naval and air operations throughout the region.
The war gradually expanded from a campaign focused mainly on Iranian territory into a broader confrontation involving maritime security, regional military bases and international energy supplies.
The first diplomatic opening
By April, it had become increasingly clear that neither side could easily achieve its maximum objectives through military action alone.
The United States could destroy military infrastructure and intensify economic pressure, but forcing Iran into unconditional political surrender remained difficult.
Iran, meanwhile, could retaliate and disrupt regional stability but could not defeat the United States in a conventional military confrontation.
This reality created the first significant opening for diplomacy.
A temporary ceasefire and a series of contacts during the spring suggested that neither Washington nor Tehran had completely closed the door to negotiations.
However, the two sides entered diplomacy with fundamentally different expectations.
Washington wanted restrictions on Iran’s strategic capabilities and guarantees that Tehran would not use the Strait of Hormuz as a political or military weapon.
Iran demanded security guarantees, recognition of its sovereignty and relief from economic sanctions and restrictions on oil exports.
The gap between these positions proved difficult to bridge.
Ceasefire without peace
The temporary reduction in hostilities did not produce a genuine peace.
Military incidents continued, while both sides accused each other of violating understandings or preparing for renewed confrontation. Air operations, missile threats and naval deployments remained part of the strategic landscape.
The conflict entered a new phase: neither full-scale war nor genuine peace.
The fundamental issues remained unresolved, including Iran’s strategic and military capabilities, the future of its nuclear programme, sanctions and access to international markets, Iranian oil exports, American military presence in the Gulf, and security arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz.
June: A new attempt at mediation
June brought renewed diplomatic activity and attempts to create a framework for de-escalation.
Regional mediators sought to establish a political understanding that could reduce military confrontation and restore safer conditions for international shipping.
Oman and other regional actors emerged as important diplomatic channels, while Iran continued to indicate that it was prepared to discuss an agreement if its core security and economic concerns were addressed.
Yet diplomacy remained fragile because military calculations continued to influence political decisions.
Neither side wanted to enter negotiations from a position that could be interpreted as weakness.
For Washington, major concessions could appear to reward Iranian military pressure. For Tehran, accepting restrictions without meaningful economic relief could appear to legitimise the military campaign against it.
Both sides wanted peace but feared the political consequences of appearing to compromise first.
From military pressure to economic warfare
By late August, the war had increasingly moved into a combined military and economic phase.
The United States intensified pressure on Iran’s financial and commercial lifelines, including efforts to restrict oil revenues and increase the economic cost of continued confrontation.
Washington’s broader strategy appeared to be shifting from expectations of a rapid military victory towards a combination of military containment and economic pressure.
Iran, however, demonstrated that sanctions alone would not necessarily produce rapid political change.
Despite severe inflation, economic hardship and restrictions on oil exports, the Iranian state remained in power.
Tehran appeared to believe that time could work in its favour, particularly if Washington became unwilling to expand the war further or if international opposition to prolonged conflict increased.
This is why the conflict had reached a strategic stalemate. Neither side had achieved its ultimate objective, yet neither was prepared to abandon the struggle.
The renewed military escalation
The fragile calm collapsed again at the end of August.
On 30 August, US forces struck Iranian rocket launchers near Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington said Iranian forces were preparing activities that could threaten international shipping, including the possible deployment of rockets and sea mines.
Iran responded with missile attacks directed towards US sites in Jordan, which were reportedly intercepted.
The renewed confrontation underlined a central reality of the war: the Strait of Hormuz remained the most dangerous potential flashpoint.
On 31 August, tensions escalated further amid reports of renewed attacks and military activity.
The United Arab Emirates also reported intercepting an Iranian drone over its territorial waters, demonstrating the risk that the conflict could once again draw more countries directly into the confrontation.
The renewed fighting also affected global energy markets, with oil prices rising sharply as investors reacted to the possibility of further disruption in the Gulf.
The United States strategy
The American strategy rests on three major objectives.
The first is to limit Iran’s ability to threaten US forces, regional allies and international shipping.
The second is to prevent Iran from using the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic instrument.
The third is to apply economic pressure sufficient to bring Tehran back towards negotiations on terms acceptable to Washington.
However, economic pressure does not automatically produce political surrender.
Iran has lived under sanctions for decades and has developed mechanisms, though increasingly costly ones, to survive international isolation.
Iran’s strategy of endurance
Iran’s strategy is based on endurance rather than decisive conventional victory.
Tehran seeks to demonstrate that it cannot easily be forced into submission.
Its principal leverage comes from missiles, drones, geography and its ability to create uncertainty in the Gulf.
Iran understands that prolonged instability in the Strait of Hormuz can have consequences far beyond the Middle East. Rising oil prices and disrupted shipping affect major economies around the world, creating international pressure for a political settlement.
Iran’s objective is not necessarily to defeat the United States militarily. It is to make the cost of continued confrontation sufficiently high that Washington eventually accepts a negotiated settlement.
A possible road to peace
A military victory is becoming increasingly difficult for either side to achieve. The most realistic path forward is therefore a phased political settlement.
The first requirement is an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, US military facilities and Iranian territory.
An international maritime security arrangement would also be needed to guarantee freedom of navigation while recognising Iranian security concerns.
Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes would need to be addressed through clearly defined stages, with international monitoring and verification.
Sanctions relief would need to be linked to verifiable commitments. Iran cannot reasonably be expected to make permanent concessions without receiving measurable economic benefits.
Mediation would also need to be broadened. Oman, Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Nations could play complementary roles in creating a wider diplomatic framework.
The cost of an unresolved conflict
After more than six months, the US–Iran war has produced neither a decisive victory nor a sustainable peace.
The United States has demonstrated enormous military reach and increased economic pressure on Iran. Yet Tehran remains politically intact and retains the ability to disrupt regional security.
Iran has demonstrated resilience but faces severe economic costs and cannot indefinitely sustain confrontation without damaging its own national interests.
The greatest danger now is not necessarily a deliberate decision to launch a wider war. It is miscalculation.
A missile strike, a naval incident, an attack on a military base or a misunderstanding in the Strait of Hormuz could rapidly transform an already dangerous stalemate into a much broader regional conflict.
The central lesson of the war so far is clear: military power can destroy targets, but it cannot by itself create a durable political order.
For both Washington and Tehran, the eventual choice is likely to be between an imperfect negotiated peace and an increasingly expensive conflict with no guaranteed end.
The writer is the Head of Brand and Communication at Islami Bank Bangladesh PLC and an ex-student of International Relations at Dhaka University.
Views expressed are solely those of the author.
