Analysts weigh in on the growing unpredictability of the conflict in Iran
The scale of the economic and political fallout from the war in Iran is still being calculated as the conflict enters its second month.
Foreign affairs experts continue to signal that U.S. success in the Iran war could hinge not just on effective airstrikes but on the strength of intelligence, diplomacy and stability in the region.
Jonathan M. Winer wrote in a blog for the Middle East Institute that the strikes against Iran and the elimination of members of the country’s senior leadership amount to tactical success touted by the Trump administration. But Miner cautioned, “Tactical success does not guarantee durable strategic advantage.” He cited several intelligence uncertainties that could shape the outcome of the conflict, such as continued cooperation of Iran’s regional partners and stability in the country.
Suzanne Maloney, vice president of the Brookings Institution and director of its foreign policy program, predicted “profound political change in Iran’s long-term future. But the air campaign that U.S. and Israeli forces are currently conducting is unlikely to bring it about.” When the fighting ends, Washington may have to engage in some form of diplomacy with factions in Iran, Maloney wrote in a Brookings analysis.
The May/June issue of Foreign Affairs includes a set of essays focused on what could come next in the war in Iran. While one outcome of the war could be a more stable Middle East as described in one essay, others like Maloney predicted which factions in Iran could take power.
Experts at the International Crisis Group foresee “no end yet in sight” to the U.S.-Israeli conflict in Iran and an “apparent lack of an exit strategy,” they wrote in a commentary. The group analyzed how countries, regions and the United Nations are responding to the war and concluded that the “bulk of governments” are calling for an end to the war, even as they are shying away from publicly upsetting the Trump administration and Israel. Tehran’s neighbors worry how they will manage “spillover fighting,” the group wrote, and governments globally are concerned about economic fallout from the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A prolonged shipping chokehold in the Strait could threaten a global crisis, according to an economic outlook by Reuters. The analysis considered three scenarios based on the projected length of the U.S.-Iran war. A “rapid regime collapse” in which energy markets quickly normalize is “credible but unlikely,” Reuters found.
The most likely scenario in the Reuters analysis is a prolonged conflict with a “mostly reopened Strait” and energy prices that remain very high until the U.S. Navy begins escorting ships through the passage. It would mean weeks of supply issues for Asian refineries, Reuters reported.
The most “catastrophic” scenario, according to the Reuters outlook, would be a closed Strait for weeks or months, putting major importing countries at “overwhelming recession risk” if the conflict lasts beyond 30 days.
Now that the fighting is in its second month, Reuters has issued a quarter-by-quarter roadmap for how companies can prepare for “a long war.”
As for President Donald Trump’s next move, he announced on Truth Social April 7 a two-week ceasefire if Iran agrees to open the Strait. With Pakistan serving as a mediator, Iran said that passage through the Strait will be possible during the ceasefire if attacks on the country are halted, according to a statement posted on X by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
