Nearly a month after US and Israeli forces launched wide-ranging strikes on Iran that killed Iran's supreme leader on February 28, a perplexing pattern has emerged.
Washington talks ceasefire while preparing fresh strikes.
Tehran issues ultimatums while partially reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel presses ahead militarily even as its American ally signals restraint.
Yet there is a growing sense that the endgame may be approaching: on March 27, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed support for Pakistan's role as a mediator in the conflict during a call with his Pakistani counterpart, a diplomatic move widely seen as a signal that the war may be settled peacefully.
A first responder inspects the damaged structure of a residential building hit in an earlier U.S.-Israeli strike in Tehran, Friday, March 27, 2026.
"The US wants to extricate itself from this war," says Wang Jianwei, Emeritus Professor of the University of Macau and Director of the Macau Center for Regional and Strategic Studies. "But the question is how, and whether it can do so on acceptable terms."
That dilemma lies at the heart of the question hanging over the region: are these moves preludes to a negotiated exit or preparations for a final, decisive blow?
Washington's contradictory signals
President Donald Trump's latest decision to postpone strikes on Iran's energy infrastructure by another 10 days—until April 6—offers a window into his strategic calculus. This marks the second such delay, as Trump continues to claim that talks with Iran on a peace deal are going "very well."
Yet in the same breath, he has made clear he does not care about making a deal—a formulation that leaves ample room for either diplomacy or renewed escalation. The president has also moved the deadline for Iran to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning that failure to do so could trigger strikes on the country's power grid.
Gas prices soar past $4.50 per gallon at Circle K. Oil and gas prices have risen sharply since Israel and the United States attacked Iran, and the flow of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz has been restricted.
Officials familiar with his thinking say Trump is increasingly focused on the domestic costs of the conflict, especially with the midterm elections approaching. Soaring oil prices and a volatile stock market could deal a heavy blow to Republican prospects.
"If the war drags on, the costs—especially rising oil prices and falling stock markets—could be fatal for Republicans in the midterms," Wang observes. Beyond domestic politics, the broader foreign policy agenda is also at stake. "The US has other diplomatic priorities—the Ukraine conflict is still stuck. Washington cannot afford to be indefinitely bogged down," Wang adds.
Yet beneath this apparent desire to wind down, a deeper tension persists. Even as Trump signals a desire to disengage, the administration is simultaneously finalizing plans for what insiders call a "crippling blow" against Iranian military assets.
This dual-track approach—diplomatic outreach paired with military readiness—reflects a deeper strategic dilemma: how to satisfy an ally demanding total victory while extricating itself from a costly war. As Zhao Yongsheng, a noted scholar at the Academy of China Open Economy, University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), puts it, the real challenge lies in managing the competing pressures from both domestic politics and alliance dynamics.
Israel's divergent agenda
While the US signals caution, Israel continues to operate with unrelenting intensity. On March 26, Israel's defense minister announced the killing of the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy—a key figure behind the near-total blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The message is clear: regardless of Washington's timeline, Israel intends to keep up the pressure.
The strategic gap between the two is widening—and at its core lies a fundamental disagreement over how far to go.
"Israel wants to use the US to finish off Iran once and for all," Wang explains. "But Trump may not want to go that far." For Israel, this is a rare window to neutralize a threat it has long considered existential. For the US, Iran is one of several global challenges, and getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern conflict is far from ideal.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 26, 2026 in Washington, DC, the first Cabinet meeting since the United States and Israel began attacking Iran on February 28.
"The US does not want to be blackmailed by Israel," observes Zhao. "But at the same time, Israel is America's most important proxy in the Middle East." This dual reality creates inherent friction: Israel wants the US to do the heavy lifting against Iran, while Washington prefers its ally to act as a force multiplier without dictating American strategy.
Zhao sees a mismatch in objectives. "Both are allies, but their interests aren't 100% aligned. Israel fears the US will pull back too soon, so it's stepping up its own military operations to keep America engaged." By launching strikes and publicizing high-value kills, Israel effectively tightens the leash on its superpower partner—forcing the US to remain committed even as Trump signals a desire to wind down.
Iran's calculated duality
Tehran has outlined five key conditions for agreeing to a ceasefire: a complete halt to what it describes as aggression and assassinations; the establishment of guarantees to prevent the war from resuming; the payment of damages and reparations; a comprehensive end to hostilities across all fronts involving allied groups in the region; and formal recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
A senior Iranian political-security official has made it clear that "Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met," adding that the country is prepared to continue its response and inflict "heavy blows" until its objectives are achieved.
A bulk carrier sits anchored at Muscat Anchorage on March 25, 2026 in Muscat, Oman.
On the other hand, Iran has allowed limited passage through the strait—a gesture widely interpreted as a subtle opening for diplomacy. But the scale of that opening is modest at best.
According to shipping data by March 25, the "limited passage" has restored only about 5% of pre-war shipping capacity through the Strait of Hormuz, with an average of six vessels per day transiting a new route under Iranian control.
Meanwhile, an estimated 2,500 ships remain stranded in the Persian Gulf. Compounding the disruption, Iran has reportedly demanded transit fees as high as $2 million per vessel from some operators—a practice that has drawn accusations of effectively weaponizing the waterway and exacerbating the global energy crisis.
Domestic politics add another layer of complexity. With public sentiment inflamed by weeks of conflict, Iranian leaders find themselves caught between competing pressures.
"The Iranian people's emotions have been thoroughly ignited," Zhao notes. "If Tehran suddenly says, 'I want to talk to the US now,' it would be hard to explain domestically."
As Wang observes, Iran's approach reflects a broader strategic instinct: "This is a nation with thousands of years of civilization—it has resilience, but also a sense of honor. When pushed to the limit, its response combines toughness with a certain restraint."
Yet beneath the defiant posture lies a genuine desire for security. After two previous rounds of negotiations that ended in stalemate—and with the memory of US assassination campaigns against Iranian commanders still fresh—officials are eager to secure lasting guarantees that Washington will not revert to such tactics once a deal is struck.
What comes next?
The critical variable, analysts agree, is Iran's staying power. If Tehran can sustain its military capabilities over the coming weeks, it may force the US to accept a diplomatic off-ramp. If its resources falter, Washington's hawkish factions could push for an all-out military resolution. But a decisive victory is far from certain.
"If a military solution were viable, it would have been achieved within the first month," Wang notes.
Rocket trails are seen in the sky amid a fresh barrage of Iranian missile attacks above the Israeli coastal city of Netanya on March 27, 2026.
Zhao goes further, arguing that the window for a decisive "final strike" may have already closed. "After four weeks of fighting, the targets that could be struck have largely been struck," he says. "What remains—nuclear-related sites, for instance—carries too much risk, either from potential leaks or strategic fallout. A final, decisive blow is unlikely at this stage."
The likeliest outcome, according to both experts, is a negotiated settlement framed as a victory for all sides.
"They need to find a way for everyone to claim they've won," Zhao says. One possible scenario: a joint administration of the Strait of Hormuz, giving Iran a symbolic victory while securing US interests.
Reporter: Guo Zedong
Photo: CFP
