Will the US-Iran war and Hormuz deadlock last for months? 

The war between the United States, Israel and Iran has entered a critical juncture, with uncertainty about the future of the conflict leaving international markets and regional stability hanging in the balance.

A memorandum of understanding signed on June 17 between Iran and the US had paused a war, which began on February 28, but the truce has since collapsed.

Central to this protracted crisis is the strategic chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran enforced a near-total closure of the waterway when fighting broke out again, disrupting global oil and liquefied natural gas exports and sending energy prices soaring.

With indirect diplomatic tracks – notably mediated through Oman – now attempting to secure a temporary 60-day transit route, fundamental disagreements regarding sovereignty and regional security threaten to prolong the current deadlock for months.

Wall of steel and decapitation

On the ground, the US continues to maintain an aggressive posture. US Central Command (CENTCOM) recently reported redirecting 48 commercial vessels, boarding two and disabling two others as part of its strict naval blockade on Iran.

US President Donald Trump described this as an unyielding “wall of steel”, demanding total surrender by Tehran or a comprehensive deal before easing the pressure.

Trump explicitly warned Tehran that current negotiations represent its “last chance before decapitation“. However, the US Treasury concurrently removed sanctions on three IRGC-linked airlines, sending Tehran mixed signals about Washington’s intent.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera that Iran is carefully weighing Washington’s vulnerabilities, including depleted missile stockpiles and the political cost of the war ahead of the US midterm elections in November.

“Trump’s warning is therefore more likely to be seen in Tehran as psychological pressure designed to force concessions than as an imminent threat of a decapitation strike, while the risk of military escalation cannot be ruled out,” she said.

“Tehran sees a familiar pattern in Trump’s approach. If Iran backs down, he is likely to increase pressure and demand more concessions. But if Iran holds firm and shows a willingness to escalate, Tehran may calculate that Trump will eventually step back because real constraints exist.”

Mortazavi noted that the Omani-brokered pause takes some of the immediate pressure off Iran and allows it to test Washington’s intentions without surrendering its position in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Omani channel

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has explicitly denied direct negotiations are taking place with the US but did confirm that talks with Oman have been under way for two months to establish a temporary safe transit route that utilises both Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Additionally, Iran’s Trade Minister Seyed Mohammad Atabak recently travelled to Pakistan to explore alternative container transit routes to bypass the US naval blockade.

Mohammad Sadeghian, director of the Arab Center for Iranian Studies, told Al Jazeera that the world is faced with a very complex situation.

“On one hand, an optimistic view says the obstacle of the Strait of Hormuz is on the road to resolution, leading back to a memorandum of understanding,” he said. “On the other hand, a pessimistic view cites numerous hurdles, including what happens if President Trump flips the table once again and we return to war.”

Sovereignty and gatekeeping

The US insists that any future must not leave Iran in control of commercial navigation of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passed before the war.

“Iran says it always wants to control the Strait of Hormuz, and the purpose of all this is to ward off future US threats,” said Joey Hood, former US assistant secretary of state.

“Without freedom of navigation in the strait and vessel movement, this vital corridor utilised by the entire world will be closed. The United States and the international community will never accept this behaviour from Iran.”

Faisal Abu Sulaib, professor of political science at Kuwait University, said the prospect of Iran maintaining control over the strait is a huge concern for the US.

“If the agreement gives Iran a gatekeeper role with regulatory control over traffic, it will complicate the success of this agreement, as the US and Gulf states will not accept this new post-war equation,” he told Al Jazeera.

Mahjoob Zweiri, a Middle East politics expert, underscored a strategic pivot in Tehran’s negotiating behaviour. “Iran has changed its strategy regarding the strait; it is no longer just an item to negotiate over, but the leverage under which everything else — sanctions relief and the naval blockade — is negotiated,” he said.

The regional matrix

The longevity of the conflict is further compounded by the role of nonstate actors, particularly those linked to Iran and critical strategic locations in the Red Sea, controlled by the Houthis.

“Nonstate actors have their own internal dynamics and domestic drivers,” Ibrahim Fraihat, professor of international conflict at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“The relationship between the patron state and nonstate actors is mutual rather than a simple push-button dynamic.”