The US Wants to Manage the Stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran Wants to Break It

The end of a monthlong lull in fighting has revived fears of a wider conflict, while both Washington and Tehran struggle with the growing economic and military costs of the standoff.

Vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, on Monday. (Reuters)

The monthlong lull in fighting between the United States and Iran has ended, bringing a dangerous confrontation back to the center of the Middle East crisis.

After weeks of relative calm, the two sides exchanged fresh attacks this week, raising fears that a conflict that had settled into an uneasy stalemate could once again spiral toward full-scale war.

The latest escalation began with new US strikes against Iranian military capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz. Washington said the operations were intended to prevent Iran from threatening commercial shipping and rebuilding capabilities that could be used to attack vessels.

Tehran responded with attacks against US positions and military facilities in several regional countries, including Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Yet, despite the rhetoric and the renewed attacks, neither side appears eager to return to the intensity of the fighting seen earlier in the conflict.

That is what makes the current situation so unusual — and so dangerous.

A War Neither Side Appears Ready to Finish

The United States and Iran are effectively trapped between escalation and restraint.

Washington wants to demonstrate that it can protect shipping and prevent Iran from turning the Strait of Hormuz into a strategic choke point. Tehran, meanwhile, wants to show that it can make the waterway too dangerous and costly to operate normally.

Neither objective is easily achievable without increasing the risk of a much larger war.

The recent attacks have therefore been relatively limited compared with the most intense phases of the conflict. US strikes have focused largely on military capabilities, while Iran has also avoided an immediate return to unrestricted attacks against civilian and energy infrastructure.

This suggests that both governments still understand the consequences of crossing certain red lines.

But restraint is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.

The Strait of Hormuz Is at the Heart of the Confrontation

The central issue is not simply territory or military superiority.

It is access.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy corridors. Before the conflict, enormous volumes of oil and gas moved through the narrow waterway every day, making it critical to the global economy.

Traffic has since fallen dramatically.

For Washington, restoring freedom of navigation is therefore both a military and economic objective.

For Tehran, disrupting navigation provides leverage that its military and economic position otherwise lacks.

Iran does not necessarily need to permanently close the strait to achieve its objective. Even slowing traffic, increasing insurance costs and forcing ships to wait offshore can generate significant pressure on global energy markets.

That makes Hormuz one of the most powerful instruments available to Tehran.

Washington's Strategy: Contain the Problem

The US appears to be pursuing a strategy of controlled pressure.

Rather than immediately seeking a decisive military victory, Washington is attempting to prevent Iran from rebuilding the capabilities necessary to threaten shipping while maintaining enough military power to deter a larger Iranian offensive.

The objective is essentially to make the Iranian strategy unsustainable.

But there is a contradiction at the heart of the American approach.

The more military resources Washington deploys to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, the more deeply the United States becomes involved in the conflict.

That creates another risk: a confrontation intended to remain limited could eventually become a much broader regional war.

Iran's Strategy: Make the Status Quo Impossible

Tehran faces an equally difficult calculation.

US sanctions and military pressure have severely affected Iran's economy and its ability to generate revenue from oil exports.

Iran therefore has a strong incentive to demonstrate that economic pressure comes with a price.

The Strait of Hormuz is its most powerful instrument.

By threatening shipping, Tehran can affect not only the United States but also Europe, Asia and the global energy market.

That creates an unusual form of leverage: Iran may be economically weakened, but it retains the ability to impose economic costs on everyone else.

The danger is that this strategy can also backfire.

The more aggressively Iran targets shipping, the stronger the justification for additional American military action. And the more Washington attacks Iranian military capabilities, the greater the incentive for Tehran to retaliate.

It is a cycle with no obvious stopping point.

The Economic Costs Are Spreading

The conflict is already being felt far beyond the Persian Gulf.

Oil prices have climbed as traders assess the possibility of prolonged disruption around Hormuz.

The consequences extend beyond gasoline.

Higher oil prices increase transportation costs, raise inflationary pressure and make it more expensive to move goods around the world.

In the United States, the economic impact is becoming an increasingly important political problem. American consumers are feeling the effects of higher fuel prices, while businesses face rising transportation and energy costs.

For Iran, however, the economic damage is considerably more severe.

The combination of sanctions, reduced oil exports and the disruption of maritime trade is putting enormous pressure on the country's finances.

That creates a fundamental question: how long can either side afford to maintain the current stalemate?

The Danger of Miscalculation

Perhaps the greatest threat is not a deliberate decision to start another major war.

It is an accident.

A missile could hit the wrong target. A warship could mistake a commercial vessel for a military threat. A drone could kill American personnel. An Iranian military installation could be struck with far greater casualties than expected.

The latest escalation already demonstrates how quickly events can become politically difficult to control.

Civilian casualties are particularly dangerous because they can create demands for retaliation — and retaliation can trigger another round of escalation.

A conflict that both sides are trying to keep limited can therefore expand through a series of decisions neither government originally intended to make.

Trump Faces a Political Problem at Home

The military stalemate is also becoming a domestic political issue for President Donald Trump.

The longer the conflict continues, the more difficult it becomes for the administration to argue that military pressure is producing a clear victory.

At the same time, higher fuel prices are being felt by American consumers.

Trump has maintained a confrontational stance toward Tehran and has indicated that he is not interested in accepting an agreement merely for the sake of ending the conflict.

But military pressure has its own limits.

If the United States cannot restore normal shipping through Hormuz while simultaneously failing to force Iran into a political settlement, Washington risks becoming locked into an expensive and open-ended military commitment.

Neither Side Has an Easy Exit

That is ultimately what makes the Strait of Hormuz crisis so difficult.

The United States can prevent Iran from completely controlling the waterway, but it cannot easily normalize the situation without maintaining a major military presence.

Iran can disrupt shipping and raise the cost of the conflict, but it cannot do so indefinitely without inviting even greater American retaliation and worsening its own economic crisis.

Both sides therefore have reasons to escalate — and reasons to stop.

The result is a precarious middle ground.

The conflict is not quite a full-scale war, but neither is it peace. The Strait is not completely closed, but commercial traffic remains far below normal levels. Diplomacy has not disappeared, but neither Washington nor Tehran appears ready to make the concessions necessary for a lasting settlement.

How Long Can the Stalemate Last?

For now, Washington appears determined to manage the stalemate.

Tehran appears determined to break it.

That difference is crucial.

The United States can tolerate a prolonged confrontation if it believes economic and military pressure will eventually force Iran to compromise. Iran, meanwhile, has an incentive to demonstrate that pressure against it carries unacceptable costs for the United States and the global economy.

But every new exchange of fire makes the space between those two strategies narrower.

The Strait of Hormuz has therefore become more than a shipping route. It is now the central bargaining chip in a confrontation in which neither side seems willing to surrender — but neither can afford the consequences of total war.

For the moment, the two governments are managing the conflict.

The real danger is that, sooner or later, the conflict begins managing them.