The dangerous game of "Neither fight nor reconcile," who will Iran and the U.S. bet will give in first?

Title: Iran and U.S. Sink Into Awkward Deadlock of 『No War, No Peace』
Author: Erika Solomon, The New York Times
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Original Author: BlockBeats

Original Source:

Reprint: Mars Finance

Editor’s Note: When a ceasefire no longer leads to peace, conflict simply continues in a different form.

This report presents a typical “intermediate state”: no full-scale war, no clear agreement, with US-Iran relations stuck in a deadlock of “no war, no peace.”
Superficial restraint does not mean reduced risk; instead, it makes the situation harder to judge—lacking stable expectations and the motivation to ease tensions.

Under this structure, both sides’ strategies gradually converge into the same logic: waiting for the other to give in first.
Negotiations are repeatedly postponed, concessions are seen as risks, and time becomes the only bargaining chip.
But this consumption-based game does not automatically lead to a resolution; it only accumulates pressure.

This pressure is reflected on one hand within Iran—rising inflation, damaged industries, and social stress intensify;
On the other hand, through key points like the Strait of Hormuz, uncertainty is transmitted to global energy markets and markets worldwide.
Localized deadlock is producing spillover effects.

The real problem is that this “status quo maintenance” seems safe but lacks an exit.
When no one is willing to act first, the deadlock itself becomes a source of risk—this resultless confrontation is often harder to resolve than short-term conflict.

Below is the original text:

As the US-Iran peace negotiation plan—at least for now—announces its collapse, Tehran and Washington are caught in an awkward deadlock of “no war, no peace,” with both sides hoping to outlast each other in this major confrontation affecting the global economy.

Analysts say that Iranian officials seem to believe they can endure the economic pain of war longer than President Trump.
But they are also worried that if negotiations lose momentum, Iran will remain under threat of strikes from the U.S. or Israel.

“What’s happening now is somewhat similar to our situation at the end of that twelve-day war—war ended, but there are no permanent arrangements,” said Sassan Karim, a former vice president of Iran and political scientist at Tehran University, describing last June’s Iran-Israel conflict.

Last weekend, Iran’s prominent conservative newspaper, Khorasan, published an article, which was reprinted by multiple Iranian media outlets, describing the current situation as a “highly risky strategic deadlock.”

“Both sides have stepped back from the costs of full-scale war, but neither has transcended the logic of force and pressure,” the article wrote.
“This state may be more dangerous than the short-term war itself.”

The ceasefire negotiations, mediated by Pakistan, are struggling to restart, reflecting the overall situation since the U.S.-Israel bombing of Iran earlier this month ended in a ceasefire.
Both sides claim to have the upper hand.
Trump also seems to believe that the U.S. can endure the economic pain of war longer than Iran—both block the Strait of Hormuz, leaving the situation deadlocked.

As a result, neither side is willing to make concessions to push negotiations forward.

Last Saturday, Trump halted plans to send his envoy, Steve Wittekov, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to Islamabad for a second round of ceasefire talks.
He said Iran would only waste the negotiators’ time.

Iranian officials insist they will not engage in direct talks until the U.S. lifts its naval blockade of Iranian ports, which was imposed after the ceasefire agreement.

Nevertheless, Iran’s top diplomat and foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, visited Pakistan last Saturday, then traveled to Oman for a meeting, and is expected to fly to Russia later this week for a second round of talks with Pakistan.
According to Iranian state media, he is scheduled to fly to Russia later this week to hold further discussions with the Pakistani side.

Beyond Islamabad—the planned venue for the next round of negotiations—Iranians consider coordination with Oman, another Gulf country located along the strategic Strait of Hormuz, to be crucial.
Oman is another country situated along the strategic route of the Strait of Hormuz, and is indispensable for reaching an agreement.

Former Iranian official Karim urges Iran’s current leadership to seize the moment and systematically articulate the overall framework of an agreement—covering Iran’s concessions, its ultimate demands, and the vision for regional peace.

But domestically, “maintaining the status quo is currently the most conservative political stance,” he warns, “because any change could trigger a possible scenario: if the plan fails, accountability will follow.”

Iran also still believes that, economically, “it can wait Trump out, at least for the next few weeks—indeed, the blockade of the Strait causes more damage to Trump than to Iranians,” said Esfandiar Baghmangli, CEO of the London-based think tank Buls and Bazar Foundation.

However, Iran’s economy is deeply in crisis. News of layoffs is spreading nationwide, and domestic petrochemical and pharmaceutical production are under severe strain due to the war.

Iran’s most influential economic newspaper, the World Economy, predicts that even in the “most optimistic” scenario of reaching an agreement, inflation could rise to 49%.
The paper warns that the “no war, no peace” state could push inflation to 70% in the coming months, and if hostilities reignite, inflation could even surpass 120%, plunging into hyperinflation.

Nevertheless, some economists estimate that Iran’s authoritarian rulers can survive the current economic crisis for three to six months.
In contrast, Baghmangli suggests that disruptions in oil and fertilizer exports could begin to cause deeper impacts on the global economy within weeks, potentially prompting Trump to push negotiations forward.

However, even if Iran can endure the deadlock economically, its strategic dilemma remains.
“From Iran’s perspective, the pattern of not reaching an agreement or going to war leaves them vulnerable,” he said.