The ceasefire between the United States, Iran, and Israel was initiated with the aim of reaching a resolution, but with only a few hours left before its expiration, there has been little visible progress in addressing the core issues driving the conflict, raising serious questions about the direction in which the situation is heading; under current conditions, the most likely outcome appears to be a “frozen conflict,” a complex scenario in which hostilities neither fully cease nor escalate into full-scale war, but instead fluctuate in intensity depending on political, military, and strategic factors; such situations typically arise when parties fail to reach a comprehensive political agreement, as seen in the case of Russia and Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 prior to the full-scale invasion, during which approximately 14,000 military and civilian lives were lost alongside ongoing cyber and information warfare; in the present context, even if the second round of talks between Iran and the United States in Pakistan leads to some form of understanding, it is unlikely to evolve into a broad and lasting peace agreement, and is more likely to result in a prolonged frozen conflict due to several key reasons; first, the foreign policy approach of U.S. President Donald Trump suggests a tendency to treat ceasefires as an endpoint rather than a step toward resolving underlying disputes, often prioritizing temporary halts in fighting over addressing root causes, which allows unresolved tensions to resurface later; although Trump has claimed to have stopped multiple conflicts, closer analysis shows that many of these situations resulted only in fragile ceasefires without meaningful resolution of core issues, as reflected in tensions between India and Pakistan or border disputes like those between Thailand and Cambodia; second, the conflict between Iran and the United States is inherently asymmetric, with a significant imbalance in military power, prompting Iran to adopt alternative strategies such as exerting pressure on U.S. interests in the Gulf and leveraging strategic نقاط like the Strait of Hormuz to maintain influence; research indicates that asymmetric conflicts tend to be prolonged and often evolve into frozen conflicts, as weaker parties avoid direct confrontation and instead apply political, economic, and psychological pressure to wear down stronger opponents; third, the longstanding dispute over Iran’s nuclear program remains unresolved, with neither side showing clear willingness to compromise, as Washington accuses Tehran of resisting limitations while Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes; although a nuclear agreement was reached in 2015 after prolonged negotiations, the subsequent withdrawal of the United States deepened mistrust and reduced the likelihood of a quick resolution; some analysts believe a partial agreement may still emerge, leaving room for future negotiations, but such a deal would not resolve the fundamental issues, especially given Iran’s firm stance on its nuclear rights and its demonstrated ability to disrupt global economic stability if necessary; as a result, a frozen conflict scenario would likely involve periodic tensions and limited escalations among Iran, the United States, and Israel, resembling the situation in Gaza where ceasefires have not eliminated underlying violence; similar to the temporary truce between Israel and Hamas, where key issues such as governance, reconstruction, and disarmament remain unresolved, the current crisis is also likely to persist in a state of instability due to the absence of a comprehensive and lasting solution.
Iran, US, Israel war heading towards ‘frozen conflict’
