Bilateral Calculation in the Current Phase of the US-Iran Confrontation: Perspectives Shaping Global Stability

The confrontations between the United States and Iran at this stage of the great game differ not only in goals but also in their interpretation of the danger they face. This is not just a routine clash between two powers but the result of decades of accumulated grievances, strategic calculations, and fundamentally divergent visions of security. Currently, the conflict has taken on a new quality: several courses of action are unfolding simultaneously, each escalating tensions at its own pace, and together forming a structure that could lose stability at any moment. For each side, this phase carries different risks, concerns, and interpretations of what is happening behind the closed doors of diplomatic negotiations.

From the U.S. Perspective: Preventing Too Late

The main concern from the American side remains the uncontrolled development of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Washington perceives this current stage as a critical moment, where any additional uranium enrichment moves Iran closer to a threshold beyond which effective intervention may no longer be possible. For U.S. decision-makers, this phase is a period to maintain pressure—both diplomatic and military—to prevent Iran from achieving a decisive shift in the balance of power in the Gulf. Economic pressure through sanctions remains a key tool, but its effectiveness diminishes each year as the Iranian economy adapts to restrictions. For the United States, this phase is thus a game of time: either Iran will retreat from its negotiating positions, or the situation will worsen.

From Iran’s Perspective: Sovereignty vs. Isolation

On the other hand, Tehran perceives this stage as a test of its resolve and ability to defend territorial integrity and technological sovereignty. For Iranian leaders, this current phase proves that compromise has not brought relief but has instead increased suspicion from the opponent. Sanctions, rather than motivating concessions, reinforce the political narrative of resistance and independence. Iran views its nuclear program not as a threat but as a necessary safeguard against potential aggression. In this phase, every diplomatic word is spoken from a position Iran must defend against domestic criticism that it is weakening national security.

Three Lines Simultaneously: An Unstable Combination

This phase is characterized by diplomacy, military signals, and economic pressure operating simultaneously rather than sequentially as before. Negotiations are conducted under the guise of possible agreement, but both sides are simultaneously strengthening their combat readiness in case of failure. Sanctions are not suspended but are evolving, gaining new tools of financial restrictions. The coexistence of these three confrontation dimensions creates a situation where any shock in one line immediately resonates in the others. The lack of sequence means there is no natural de-escalation point—when one party is tired of negotiations, others are just ramping up readiness. This explains why this phase appears more fragile than previous ones.

Persian Gulf: The Narrowest Point of Risk

The physical geography of the Persian Gulf amplifies intellectual instability. Warships, drones, smaller patrol vessels, and civilian merchant ships operate in close proximity, every day, in an atmosphere of heightened alertness. No side officially seeks a naval confrontation, but both operate forces as if it could occur at any moment. This internal contradiction—between words and actions—creates a space where unintended threats are possible within seconds. Especially the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global energy trade passes, is a critical point. Even limited disturbances or perceived instability in this area immediately impact global oil prices, maritime insurance costs, and market sentiment. This conflict phase is thus a threat not only to Tehran and Washington but to any economy dependent on energy flows through this channel.

Financial Pressure as a Background Noise

Economic restrictions are no longer a temporary tool aimed at quick concessions. In this phase, they have evolved into a long-term regime shaping Iran’s strategic planning and capabilities. From the U.S. side, sanctions limit Iran’s access to global markets, force diversification of trading partners, and strengthen Washington’s negotiating position. From Iran’s side, these same restrictions convince society and political elites that any agreement would only encourage further sanctions. This asymmetric perception causes economic pressure at this stage not to bring the sides closer but to push them apart. Iran’s economy adapts—finding new trade channels, changing import structures—but ideologically and politically, Iran hardens in its opposition.

Regional Echoes and the Scene of Uncertainty

The current U.S.-Iran confrontation phase is never purely bilateral. Regional countries, which host U.S. military bases, understand they could become secondary targets even if they do not participate in decisions. Iran-linked groups monitor every signal, every change in “red lines,” seeking green lights for escalation or signs of restraint. Behind closed doors, European and regional diplomatic elites work on de-escalation, but not out of faith in a lasting compromise—more out of fear of irreversible breakdown of control. In this phase, public statements sound firm, but private talks focus on changing trajectories, on the risk limits that can be approached without losing the ability to retreat.

Unofficial Channels and Double Readiness

Despite the stern tone of publicly declared positions, both sides maintain confidential communication channels. This network of informal contacts functions precisely because of mutual distrust—serving as a safety valve to prevent tragic misunderstandings. However, these unofficial channels do not foster reconciliation; rather, they manage danger. Simultaneously, neither side relies solely on words. Military readiness remains high, economic tools operate at full capacity, and preparations for negotiation failure proceed alongside hopes for agreement. This duality is rational from a security strategy perspective but also increases the risk that preparations for confrontation may trigger the very conflict they aim to prevent.

Forecast for This Phase: Continuation and Vigilance

In the coming months, the most realistic outlook is continuity rather than breakthrough. Negotiations will proceed in narrow formats, financial sanctions will remain active and evolve, and military readiness will stay moderately elevated. Incidents may occur—sea encounters may escalate, provocations may be tested—but most will be managed below the threshold of open conflict. The real danger lies in an unexpected coincidence: an incident occurring at an inopportune political moment, amid domestic pressure, with limited room for tactical restraint. In such a moment, even a cautious leader might feel compelled to respond decisively, igniting an escalation spiral no one planned.

Limited concessions on nuclear issues could temporarily reduce tensions, but the deadlock would remain. It would simply be reset and frozen, awaiting the cycle’s next phase.

Final Assessment: Risk Management Under Distrust

This U.S.-Iran confrontation phase is not about testing emotions or national pride. It is an exam in risk management under conditions where trust has been frozen for decades. Both sides believe in their ability to control escalation while maintaining pressure, but history shows that certainty erodes faster than plans when reality accelerates. For now, stability depends not on grand agreements but on individual acts of restraint, on reading the other side’s intentions through unofficial channels, and on absorbing shocks without impulsive responses. This phase demonstrates how delicate the balance is between war and peace when both sides play a high-stakes game with minimal margin for error.