Negotiation or Escalation? The Quest for a Way Out of the War on Iran

• Med this Week Middle East and North Africa · Transatlantic Relations
  by Antonia Ricciardiello and Caterina Roggero
• whatsapp

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios. Today, we shed light on the current phase of the war between the United States, Israel and Iran, examining its growing impact on energy infrastructure across the region.

Entering its fourth week, the war involving the US, Israel and Iran is shifting into a new and deeply uncertain phase, in which tentative diplomatic initiatives coexist with clear signals of escalation. Between unmet ultimatums and contested claims of ongoing negotiations, the only proposal put forward - a 15-point US plan conveyed via Pakistani mediation - has reportedly been dismissed by Tehran as "maximalist and unreasonable", casting further doubt on prospects for a near-term resolution to the conflict. Indeed, despite Trump's rhetoric of potential diplomatic openings, developments on the ground suggest the opposite. The US is sending about 2,000 soldiers to the Middle East - marking the largest military deployment since the Iraq War -, while Israel has intensified its airstrikes amid rising concerns that diplomatic pressure may soon curb the conflict.. This phase of heightened tension reflects a broader shift in the conflict, with energy infrastructure emerging as its primary battleground. According to the International Energy Agency, so far more than 40 energy assets across nine countries have been damaged or shut down, exacerbating an already severe supply-chain crisis and sending shockwaves through global markets. From the Israeli strike on Iran's South Pars gas field - the world's largest - to the Iranian retaliation on key facilities in the Gulf, attacks have targeted the core of regional energy production and processing. Among the most consequential cases is Qatar's Ras Laffan Industrial City, where strikes reportedly disabled infrastructure accounting for roughly 17% of LNG exports; repairs could take years, with far-reaching implications for energy supplies to Europe and Asia. These developments show that Iran's leverage extends far beyond mere control of the Strait of Hormuz to its capacity to inflict lasting damage on critical energy assets in the region, effectively raising the costs of the war for its adversaries. Meanwhile, despite easing some sanctions on Iranian oil to contain rising energy prices and signalling openness to diplomacy, President Trump continues to warn that the US could "hit harder than before" if negotiations fail. Caught between Washington's contradictory messaging and Tehran's intransigence, the conflict continues, with consequences - both immediate and long-term - growing increasingly severe.

Experts from the ISPI network discuss the strategic calculations of the US, Israel and Iran in the current phase of the conflict, with a focus on its mounting impact on regional energy infrastructure.

US war on Iran: searching for a face-saving exit strategy

"Donald Trump is embroiled in a crisis that generates more problems than it solves, and his contradictory statements reflect this challenging situation. The administration is deeply divided, much like the MAGA movement; Washington's allies are, at best, sceptical about the war; the President's approval rating has recently fallen to a historic low, and rising energy costs stir concerns about their potential effect on the US economy. In this framework, the White House's priority is to end the war with a face-saving agreement. Increasing pressure on Tehran by threatening to deploy ground troops seems more like a tactical move than a practical military option, considering its potential human and political costs. Iran's strategy seems to leverage on Trump's difficulties. The main concern is Israel's reaction. At home, a US disengagement could cost the President some of the Jewish vote in the upcoming midterm elections. Internationally, the continuation of the Israel-Iran showdown risks undermining the benefits of a possible US de-escalation, especially regarding energy prices and their impact on Donald Tumps's support base."

Gianluca Pastori, Senior Associate Research Fellow, ISPI

Iran's political resilience and uncompromising stance

"Despite the targeted killing of its political leadership, Iran's constitutional succession and continued functioning of core institutions has underscored the political resilience in Iran. However, the violent generational shift in the leadership has not produced a more conciliatory stance toward negotiations - a result Israel's strategy has sought to prevent by undermining any off-ramp for a US-Iran deal. It was reflected in the public rejection of the highly-hoped Trump's scape proposal mediated by Pakistan this week. In return, Iran has announced a list of minimum requirements for any likely 'end of the war agreement' centred around compensating total war damages; the recognition of the new Iranian mechanism for regulating Hormuz Strait; the legally binding non-reversible cessation of war in all regional fronts including Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen; and, the permanent dismantling of sophisticated sanction machinery. Altogether, they undermine the socio-political legitimacy of any compromising deal, similar to what already been betrayed by US during negotiations prior to last two unprovoked wars."

Seyed Emamian, Assistant Professor, Tehran Polytechnic University; Co-founder, Governance and Policy Think Tank (GPTT)

Dealignments emerge between US and Israel's security priorities

"In Israel, Donald Trump's announcement has generated unease rather than reassurance. Avoiding immediate US strikes may reduce escalation risks, but Israeli officials doubt diplomacy's effectiveness and fear a deal that overlooks their security concerns. They are anxious about the continued American ambiguity at a decisive moment. This scepticism is shaped by two recent experiences. First, US-Iran talks in February 2026 neared a breakthrough but collapsed as joint US-Israeli strikes began on 28 February, triggering the current war. For Israel, diplomacy can precede escalation as easily as de-escalation. Second, Trump's unilateral May 2025 understandings with the Houthis reinforced fears of being sidelined to safeguard American interests at the expense of Israeli security. While Israel prioritises sustained military pressure to dismantle Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, Washington appears more focused on short-term stability. Trump retains leverage to constrain Israeli operations, underscoring a calibrated gap rather than a rupture, and raising concern he may still strike a separate deal with Iran."

Ilai Saltzman, Director, Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies

The limits of Gulf Countries' defensive approach amid Iranian attacks

"Assuming US-Israeli military operations against Iran persist, no negotiated settlement is reached, and Iran continues to target energy and critical infrastructure in the Gulf, the costs of Gulf inaction could be higher than those of military intervention against Iran, even if the practical utility of such intervention is uncertain. We are at a point in the conflict where strategic bombers (which the Gulf states don't have) are more heavily incorporated into US military strategy and US-Israeli strikes are becoming more sophisticated, requiring piloting skill, intelligence, payload and precision the Gulf states simply do not have. That said, the intent of any Gulf offensive military action would be to signal to Iran that these states - most likely the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar - are willing to impose economic costs on Iran and establish a level of deterrence. It may not work, but if things escalate, the Gulf states might be left with no other choice but to try going on the offensive and hope the Americans and the Israelis stand by them. Playing defense only is simply unsustainable."

Bilal Y. Saab, Senior Managing Director, TRENDS US; Associate Fellow, Chatham House

The nuclear file as the gateway to the negotiating table

"The nuclear dossier previously formed the foundation for comprehensive normalisation and a long-term agreement. Yet, under current circumstances, it may function only as an entry point for broader talks addressing a wider set of issues. As of now, the nuclear file can be considered as the "easiest" component of a potential settlement, as it can be largely and effectively defined by technically measurable and verifiable parameters. However, any agreement in this domain would represent only an initial step, preceding engagement with far more politically sensitive issues such as Iran's missile program and its regional activities. In this setting, the choice of mediator is critical. Oman has demonstrated particular effectiveness, owing to its experience in building trust with both sides. Qatar could also assume a similar role, while Turkey and Egypt may contribute additional channels and political support. By contrast, Russia and the European states are likely to play a more limited role, given questions surrounding their perceived neutrality in the current conflict."

Nikolay Kozhanov, Research Associate Professor, Gulf Studies Center, Qatar University