The Second Phase Between Washington and Tehran: Is the Region Heading Toward a Temporary Truce or a Reshaping of the Conflict?

Muawiya Al-Toum

The relationship between the United States and Iran has entered what can be described as the “second phase” of conflict management — a phase that goes beyond limited military messaging or traditional economic pressure, evolving instead into a complex confrontation intertwined with the nuclear file, energy security, Lebanon, the Red Sea, and the future of regional influence in the Middle East.

In this context, the disagreements and exchanged statements between the two sides, along with Iran’s delayed response to the latest American proposal and the 14-point framework, indicate that the crisis is no longer confined to technical negotiations over the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Rather, it has become tied to redefining the rules of regional engagement as a whole, as well as the widening gap between the two parties and the possibility of bridging it.

First: Why Has the Iranian Response Been Delayed?

Tehran’s delay in responding to the American proposals does not appear to be merely procedural or tactical. Instead, it reflects deeper calculations tied to the nature of the current regional and international moment, as well as Iran’s rejection of maximum pressure and its preference for pursuing a strategy of achievable gains rather than the surrender Washington seeks.

Iran realizes that despite Washington’s continued hardline rhetoric, the United States does not want a comprehensive regional explosion, particularly in light of:

• The fragility of global energy markets,
• Tensions in the Red Sea,
• The continuation of the war in Gaza and its repercussions,
• American concerns over the expansion of war into Lebanon and the Gulf,
• Washington’s broader strategic competition with China and Russia,
• And domestic American preoccupations.

On the other hand, Tehran believes that time may grant it additional leverage, especially as the economic and security costs of confrontation rise for the West.

Accordingly, the Iranian strategy — shaped by geography and topography — appears to rest on:

1. Prolonging negotiations without allowing them to collapse,
2. Gradually raising the ceiling of its demands,
3. Using regional arenas as indirect pressure tools,
4. Avoiding an open direct confrontation with the United States.

However, this same tactic carries major risks, as Washington may interpret Iranian stalling as an attempt to impose new political and military realities on the ground.

Second: Washington Between Deterrence and Preventing an Explosion

The United States faces a complicated strategic dilemma.

It seeks to prevent Iran from becoming an actual nuclear power, while simultaneously avoiding a broad war that could ignite the Middle East and affect the global economy and energy prices ahead of sensitive domestic political and economic milestones.

Thus, current American policy appears based on a delicate equation:

• Maintaining military and economic pressure,
• Delivering strong deterrent messages and continuing sanctions,
• Supporting regional allies,
• While keeping the door to negotiations open.

Yet this approach faces a fundamental challenge: Iran increasingly views American deterrence tools as manageable and containable, particularly after years of “shadow wars” and limited reciprocal attacks.

Therefore, the current phase is not one of genuine peace, but rather a phase of “managing escalation” more than achieving a final settlement.

Third: Lebanon Between a Fragile Truce and the Possibility of Explosion

Lebanon remains one of the most dangerous arenas in the coming phase.

The current truce on the Lebanese front appears closer to a temporary cessation of hostilities than to lasting stability, especially because:

• Israel considers the current northern security environment unacceptable,
• While Hezbollah believes that any major retreat would weaken the deterrence equation it has built over years.

As the American-Iranian track falters, the likelihood grows that Lebanon may be used as a mutual pressure card through:

• Limited and calculated escalation,
• High-profile security operations,
• Or a gradual widening of confrontation.

At the same time, all parties recognize that a comprehensive war in Lebanon would differ fundamentally from previous confrontations due to:

• The advancement of missile capabilities,
• Lebanon’s fragile internal situation,
• The potential involvement of multiple regional actors,
• And the direct impact of war on shipping routes, energy markets, and the global economy.

For this reason, the most likely near-term scenario may be the continuation of a “no war, no peace” situation, with the risk of sudden escalation remaining ever present due to a field error or unexpected political decision.

Fourth: Energy Prices — The Most Sensitive Weapon

Whenever relations between Washington and Tehran become more complicated, energy markets return to the forefront of global concern.

The region still controls some of the world’s most critical energy arteries through:

• The Strait of Hormuz,
• The Red Sea,
• And Gulf-linked supply routes,

while China and Russia continue to benefit from this strategic reality.

Any direct or indirect escalation immediately impacts:

• Oil prices,
• Shipping and insurance costs,
• Global supply chains,
• And international inflation.

Recent experiences have shown that even the mere threat of closing strategic waterways or targeting vessels can disrupt markets without the outbreak of full-scale war.

Here lies the danger of the current phase:

The conflict is no longer confined to military calculations alone, but has become directly linked to global economic stability and to the interests of regional states, particularly the Gulf countries.

This is why major powers — including China and the European Union — seek to prevent the complete collapse of negotiations, because the cost of regional chaos has become global rather than merely regional.

Fifth: The Most Likely Scenarios

Conditional De-escalation Scenario

This scenario is based on:

• Continued indirect negotiations,
• Avoiding major military escalation,
• Containing the Lebanese and Red Sea fronts,
• Temporary understandings regarding the nuclear issue and sanctions.

This is the scenario most favorable to the global economy, though it remains fragile and vulnerable to collapse.

Controlled Escalation Scenario

This would involve:

• Limited strikes,
• Escalation through proxies,
• Maritime and security operations,
• Mutual increases in threats and pressure.

This currently appears to be the most likely scenario because it allows both sides to preserve deterrence without sliding into all-out war, while remaining tied to broader efforts to halt the conflict comprehensively.

Regional Explosion Scenario

This is the most dangerous possibility and includes:

• Expansion of war in Lebanon,
• Targeting of energy facilities or strategic waterways,
• Broader American intervention,
• Severe disruption of global energy markets.

Despite its seriousness, this scenario remains less likely because its costs would be enormous for all parties involved.

Conclusion

The second phase of tensions between the United States and Iran is most likely not heading toward a comprehensive settlement, but neither does it appear to be moving immediately toward a major war.

Both sides are operating within a complicated gray zone:

• Washington seeks containment without explosion,
• Tehran seeks to consolidate influence without direct confrontation,
• While the entire region stands atop a fragile balance governed by deterrence calculations, energy concerns, and strategic waterways.

The fundamental problem, however, is that the Middle East has become trapped in a cycle of “postponed crises,” where conflicts are managed rather than resolved, and explosions are delayed rather than prevented.

In such an environment, even a small field error or an uncalculated operation in Lebanon, the Gulf, or the Red Sea could become the spark for a broad strategic transformation whose consequences would extend far beyond the region to affect the global economy and the international order itself — an order already facing unprecedented challenges to the legitimacy of war and the foundations of international peace and security.