Amid a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the US, analysts say the conflict has evolved into a "battle of political will," with both sides seeking to pressure the other without triggering a return to full-scale war.
A comprehensive peace deal before the end of June appears unlikely, they say, given disagreements over Iran's nuclear program and Israel's offensive in Lebanon.
"This is a battle of political wills," Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst at the RANE Network, told Anadolu.
Although a Pakistan-brokered truce has been in effect since April 8, tensions remain high across the Middle East, with sporadic strikes.
John Calabrese, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said a probable outcome is likely to be an extended, unstable ceasefire -- a condition of neither war nor peace.
"The conflict has unmistakably become a contest of political will, with both sides applying pressure while carefully managing escalation thresholds -- and there are strong indications that each is trying to outlast the other rather than force a decisive military conclusion."
Calabrese pointed out that Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf had publicly framed it as a "battle of wills," insisting Tehran will not bow to any form of pressure and that increasing economic pressure and blockade cannot force Iran to change its stance.
On the US side, the professor noted that the US President Donald Trump insists that he feels no pressure to reach a deal quickly and maintains he has leverage over Tehran.
Analysts outlined three possible scenarios for the months ahead.
The most likely scenario for the rest of the month and possibly the summer would be that the two countries continue exchange of fire, without resuming full-scale war, said Bohl.
This would mean limited attacks, mutual provocations and economic pressure -- with neither side abandoning the ceasefire, nor fully committing to peace.
The Strait of Hormuz would also stay functionally closed, with small-scale attacks on Gulf countries, he added.
The second, "more optimistic" scenario, according to analyst Bohl, would involve a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that extends the ceasefire and creates a framework for future negotiations on sanctions, blockades and Iran's nuclear program.
Under such an arrangement, disruption in Hormuz could continue through much of the summer but would be on the path to normalization by the end of August.
The third and most dangerous scenario would be renewed hostilities.
A major Iranian attack on Israel because of their campaign in Lebanon, significant US military casualties, a deadly strike on Gulf infrastructure or a decision by Washington and Israel to resume military operations could all trigger renewed escalation.
Bohl said that until all the aircraft carriers are gone, a full-scale escalation cannot be ruled out.
Analysts say neither side currently has strong incentives to make major concessions.
For defense analyst Marina Miron, the situation of surrender depends on how long the standoff lasts and how much pressure the international community is able to put upon the US and Israel.
"Although it must be said that Iranian officials are reportedly examining interim arrangements that would bring sanctions relief, access to revenues, and reduced economic pressure. But that would necessitate the United States to accept Tehran's proposal."
"Will the US be able to politically declare some kind of 'victory' while offering concessions is the question," she asked.
Bohl said Washington would be more inclined to make concessions and pursue a deal resembling the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
He noted that the US president would be interested in this "slam dunk" surrender scenario.
"It's not urgent for either side. For Trump, it's the midterms, and then of course his own legacy, but he's going to be president till 2029, so that's his maximum timeline."
"For the Iranian government, there's an economic crisis, but they can probably ride that out politically for another year, two or five years even, because authoritarian systems are designed to resist that kind of pressure."
Despite Trump's optimistic rhetoric, analysts remain skeptical that a comprehensive agreement is imminent.
Bohl said Trump seems to believe that as long as he keeps the blockade going it will put pressure on the Iranians. However, Trump does not want to be the first one to lift the blockade, he said.
The analyst noted that negotiations on the nuclear issue can take years with many technical hurdles to overcome. Another issue is the whereabouts and possession of the uranium stockpile.
Analysts also say that the Israeli offensive is threatening the ceasefire, and creating complications for a peace deal.
According to Bohl, losing the Hezbollah group as a regional ally would significantly weaken Iran's ability to project influence and deter Israel.
Analysts note that economic pressure has become central to the Iran war.
"On the grand strategic level, both the US and Iran use the economic tool along with the military tool to achieve their overall objectives," said Miron, a researcher at the Department of Defence Studies, King's College London.
She noted that by threatening shipping and energy markets, Tehran raises the economic cost of the war, thereby testing the political will of the US.
Calabrese noted that Iran entered this conflict in a condition of pre-existing economic distress, with the war dramatically accelerating that deterioration.
He, however, noted Tehran has a higher tolerance for economic pain than the US. "The regime has survived decades of sanctions through a combination of repression, workarounds, and the cultivation of parallel economic structures."
The US, he believes, is facing a different problem, with the war being fought in a democratic political environment, and public opinion has moved sharply against it.
"The November midterm elections are shaping up as a referendum on an unpopular White House incumbent, with the economy, the nation's international standing, and the war all pointed in the wrong direction."
He noted that while Iran is economically far more exposed but politically insulated, the US is materially more resilient but politically more vulnerable, which makes the situation difficult to resolve.
