When Donald Trump returned to the White House, he promised to avoid another “forever war” in the Middle East. After the costly experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, that promise resonated with an American public weary of prolonged military intervention.
For a brief moment, it appeared that this promise might come true. of memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the US and Iran on June 17 appeared to offer a path away from escalating confrontation. Markets stabilized, regional tensions eased, and there was cautious optimism that Washington and Tehran were off the brink.
That optimism has proved remarkably but surprisingly short-lived. US military attacks have restarted AND Iran has retaliated against the Americans and its allies across the Gulf. Iran’s proxy allies, the Houthis, have declared themselves ready to close the Red Sea chokepoint at the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which has provided an alternative transit route for some oil exports, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
Washington continues to combine military pressure with calls for renewed negotiations. But rather than representing the collapse of an isolated peace initiative, these developments may confirm the reality of gray zone conflict – where diplomacy manages war instead of ending it.
When Americans think of eternal wars, Iraq and Afghanistan understandably dominate the discussion. Those conflicts were characterized by invasions, prolonged occupations, nation-building efforts, and the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops over many years. Their enormous political, financial and human costs eventually became unsustainable.
The confrontation with Iran is fundamentally different. It is unlikely to require the conquest of territory and no serious or sustained effort to directly remake the Iranian state.
Instead, it is fought through airstrikes, cyber operations, sanctions, naval confrontation, intelligence activity and proxy warfare. Military escalation is followed by diplomacy, diplomacy gives way to new confrontation, and each episode presents itself as a crisis in its own right.
Viewed collectively, these episodes are best understood as the latest phase of a strategic confrontation that began with the Iranian Revolution of 1979 rather than as isolated crises. The conflict has evolved over the years through sanctions, proxy warfare, covert operations and cyber conflict into a more direct military confrontation.
The repeated failure of de-escalation efforts is often attributed to mistrust or diplomatic failure. Both certainly matter, but they don’t fully explain why the MoU has unraveled so quickly.
Many of its core provisions have become sources of controversy. Israel has moved on military operations in Lebanondespite expectations that regional hostilities would diminish. Washington initially signaled greater economic flexibility toward Iran, including easing restrictions on oil exports and discussions about Iranian assets. STILL sanctions have since been expanded and further economic measures have been introduced.
From Tehran’s perspective, these actions represent a violation of the spirit – and, in some cases, the letter – of the agreement. From Washington’s perspective, they are a response to ongoing Iranian activity that it considers destabilizing.
The Strait of Hormuz illustrates how quickly ambiguity can turn into renewed confrontation. Article 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding provided for Iran facilitating the safe passage of commercial transport through the waterway. Commercial traffic initially increased after the deal.
But the dispute quickly emerged after Oman – in coordination with the International Maritime Organization and with US support – established a temporary maritime corridor closer to the Omani coast.
Tehran viewed this as incompatible with the agreed framework and argued that it undermined Iranian responsibility for administering safe passage. Washington rejected that interpretation, asserting that the additional security measures were necessary to protect international shipping.
Competing interpretations quickly became another source of escalation.
The conflict itself has also evolved. What began primarily as attacks against military infrastructure has increasingly extended to facilities with direct consequences for civilian life. This has included energy infrastructure and desalination plants which are essential to fresh water supplies in parts of the Gulf.
Transport infrastructure, including bridges, has also been targeted. This has fueled debate among military analysts about whether operational objectives are expanding beyond coercive signaling – using limited military force to pressure or influence an adversary’s behavior – to broader military goals. It has also raised questions about whether some attacks could violate international humanitarian law and, depending on the circumstances, amount to war crimes.
While the expansion of US attacks in this way does not in itself indicate that a US ground offensive is imminent, it does reflect an expanding conflict whose effects are increasingly reaching the civilian population.
Diplomacy is conflict management, not conflict resolution
The deeper problem is that the strategic objectives of the main actors here remain fundamentally incompatible.
The US continues to insist that Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence must be limited. Iran considers the same capabilities essential to its security and deterrence. Israel continues to see a strategically stronger Iran as an unacceptable security threat.
These objectives cannot all be achieved at the same time. As a result, diplomacy struggles—not because negotiators lack skill, but because they are trying to reconcile goals that remain at odds. The Memorandum of Understanding temporarily reduced tensions, but did not change the structural realities driving the conflict.
This has important implications for how the current crisis should be understood. Much of the debate focuses on whether the latest escalation will produce a wider regional war. This possibility cannot be ruled out.
Another scenario may be just as plausible, if not more so. The US and Iran are settling into a protracted cycle of calibrated confrontation that lasts far longer than many currently anticipate.
Trump promised to end America’s perpetual wars. Ironically, his presidency may symbolize the evolution of a new kind of perpetual war without a clearly defined beginning or end.
Therefore, the biggest risk may not be another Iraq. It could be the gradual normalization of an enduring conflict that repeatedly disappears from the headlines, only to return in new forms because the political conditions necessary for true peace have yet to emerge.
This is a new normal for a US foreign policy establishment that maintains a militaristic mindset, a massive global military capacity and footprint, and values global supremacy in an era of power shifting toward a more multipolar world.
Bamo Nouri is an honorary researcher, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London AND Inderjeet Parmar is a professor in international politics, City St George’s, University of London
This article was reprinted from Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read on original article.
