Throughout the history of warfare, conflicts have never been just a chain of connected battles. They are also records of major turning points that could not have ended without a dramatic and decisive moment.
A close reading of major conflicts reveals a clear truth, especially in wars between balanced powers or clashing ideologies: they are rarely brought to an end by calm negotiations in their early stages. More often, they end through a sudden act that breaks the will to fight and imposes a new reality.
The Second World War lasted for six years, during which humanity suffered devastation on a scale never seen before. At the same time, a hidden race was unfolding inside scientific laboratories. The theory behind nuclear fission was not secret, and it was understood by all. The real challenge, however, lay in turning that theory into practical application. The world knew that whichever power succeeded first in developing such a weapon would be the one to bring the global conflict to a final end and shape the world order.
Everyone was racing against time. The scientific principle existed, but the real difference lay in the ability to turn it into an actual bomb.
When the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the act was not merely a military strike. It was a dramatic shock that paralysed Japanese thinking and forced an empire once thought invincible to bow before overwhelming force.
Without that radical act, the war might have continued for years longer.
If we turn to the present scene, and specifically to the conflict between the United States and Iran, it becomes clear that a decisive outcome is far less straightforward than it was in the 1940s.
We are now facing two sides whose calculations are tied to existential concerns and complex political ambitions.
For Iran, the war is not merely a military confrontation; it is also a test of the project of Wilayat al Faqih, or the ‘Guardianship of the Jurist’.
An end to the conflict on American terms would mean, from Tehran’s point of view, the collapse of an expansionist and ideological dream in which it has invested for decades. Such an outcome is unacceptable to Tehran, because the fall of that project would also threaten the legitimacy on which the state has long rested.
On the other side, the United States, under the Trump administration, is guided by very different calculations.
America does not want an open war that would negatively affect the living conditions of its citizens if the conflict were to drag on. Washington is already dealing with inflationary pressure, rising unemployment and sharp increases in oil prices. For that reason, it is searching for an approach that can achieve deterrence without slipping into a long war of attrition.
I believe that the final means of ensuring Iranian compliance will not come through a ground invasion or a comprehensive air campaign. It is more likely to come through control of geography itself. Control over maritime passages today carries a force comparable to that of nuclear power in an earlier era. Iran will eventually accept reality, because it knows that controlling the Strait of Hormuz in the face of a major naval power is extremely difficult from both a technical and military perspective.
A realistic reading of the situation suggests that we are likely to see a new round of negotiations soon, though it will not resemble those that came before.
It will be shaped by painful concessions from both sides to reach a middle ground.
It is no longer in Iran’s interest to prolong the current situation, as Tehran has already learned that striking its Gulf neighbours brings no real benefit. However, serious the damage to neighbouring states may be, it has produced no strategic gain for Iran. Instead, it has deepened Iran’s isolation and weakened any regional sympathy it may once have had.
It has become clear to all that America cannot do anything decisive against Iran internally without paying a very heavy price. Iran, meanwhile, does not possess the tools to alter the global order or break American dominance at the present time. This balance of mutual limitation is what pushes the solution toward the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the most important passage for the Gulf and for the wider world, and any attempt to tamper with it is a gamble with the future of global stability.
Today, one can only hope that pressure around Hormuz becomes the strongest driver towards peace.
The hope is that the powers in conflict will recognise that wars of attrition do not build states, and that the path back to stability begins with respect for neighbours, protection of freedom of trade, and the choice to live in peace, far from dreams of expansion and illusions of absolute power.
akram@fp7.com
&uuid=(email))