After renewed US-Iran strikes – how could the conflict end?

For context, the prospect of an imminent agreement to end the conflict between the US and Iran again seems unlikely, with the warring sides exchanging strikes and uncompromising rhetoric.

Key points

• Dr Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, Associate Fellow with Chatham House's Middle East and North Africa Programme, London.
• Nicholas Hopton, Distinguished Fellow in international security at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London and former UK ambassador to Iran.
• What lifting those sanctions would do over time is weaken Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC).
• The US aim was to force Iran to negotiate and to stop its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Iran can continue to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz – they have a thumb on the jugular of the global economy.

In practice, the attacks come days after the US remarked it was moving into a new phase – a sweeping economic blockade against Iran and countries which trade with it.

For context, the US aim was to force Iran to negotiate and to stop its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The key commercial shipping route has been effectively closed since the US and Israel began the conflict in February.

For context, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the two sides signed in June and meant to result in a permanent ceasefire and a accord within 60 days has expired.

As the conflict enters its seventh month, we asked three experts for their thoughts on how it may play out. US hopes military and economic pressure will weaken Iran's negotiating power. Jason Campbell, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, Washington DC.

In practice, the difficulty is we still do not know definitively what the US strategic objectives are in Iran. The White House is persistently re-evaluating what it is willing to live with from a political standpoint.

It was assumed the military component would be enough for a quick victory and that has not had the desired effect.

What we are seeing is different levers – both military and economic – that the US is trying to pull at.

Right now, the administration appears satisfied with some form of statis. I think they are satisfied with maintaining the blockade and with allowing some periodic targeting against Iran's capability to upset the shipping lane in the strait.

US authorities are hopeful that the new sanctions will be enough to compel the Iranian regime to come to the negotiating table in a weaker position.

US forces have seemingly been able to facilitate a sufficient trickle through the Strait of Hormuz in recent days to avert an oil-price shock or a global economic collapse. But those were not the US objectives when starting the war.

My sense is that Iran is projected to demand a high rate to obtain to a resolution. It is probable to remain politically untenable for the Trump administration. Iran will wait for US concessions.

I do not think the latest strikes really alter Iranian calculations on the war. I think Tehran is preparing for an rose squeeze on its economy, and a continuation of the on and off attacks which we have seen over the past couple of months. Their intent will be to respond to these attacks in a proportionate manner in order not to spiral a larger conflict.

As we know from the December and January demonstrations in Iran, on the economic side, obviously this is projected to hurt the Iranian economy which has already been affected by the war and has had underlying structural matters anyway.

But I do not feel like there is the sense from the Iranian side that the economic squeeze is going to alter the Iranian calculation any time shortly, including on any negotiations.

That does not mean Iran is not looking for an off ramp, but I think what we are seeing is that it is waiting for the US to go back to the MoU, or to at least offer some sort of concession. Tehran does not want to cave in to US pressure or alter its own approach in response to sanctions or extra attacks. US knows what to do – go back to the MoU.

For context, the latest spike in military action is not going to produce Iran's capitulation – it is just the latest twist. Economic pressure is additionally unlikely to work as China, Russia and plenty of other countries which trade with Iran are not going to backing unilateral US sanctions.

Iran can continue to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz – they have a thumb on the jugular of the global economy. What is the White House's exit strategy?

Well, the US has already discovered it. If Trump was able to put a sustained effort into negotiating the accord outlined in June's MoU, that is the off-ramp.

Not only would a accord provide the US a kind of victory since it would weaken the hardliners in the Islamic Republic, but additionally reassure everyone that Iran is not going to obtain a nuclear weapon.

There is a silver bullet in the MoU which is the lifting of all US sanctions on Iran.

What lifting those sanctions would do over time is weaken Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC). Economic engagement between the outside world and Iran in a new way would gradually force radical political and social change – so you end up with an Islamic regime, but of a particularly different nature.

Since of extensive IRGC penetration of the Iranian economy, of course, that would not be straightforward to achieve. But it should work, if given enough time and if the US and its partners exercised strategic patience which, sadly, is in short supply at this point.

For now, I think we're going to carry on with a messy, inconclusive situation that is bad for everyone.

In short, after renewed US-Iran strikes is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.