#四月行情预测 Is the Iran-U.S. war coming to an end?

Latest news indicates that both Iran and the United States have expressed intentions to ease tensions. Will the war end?

1. Iran-U.S. Attitudes Easing
On the American side, President Trump told reporters on Tuesday (March 31) in the White House Oval Office, "We will be withdrawing soon." He said, "I think in about two or three weeks, we will withdraw because there’s no reason to keep fighting." He added, "We are wrapping things up, maybe in two weeks or a few more days, but we want to completely destroy everything they have. We might reach an agreement before then because we will attack bridges—we’ve destroyed some, and are ready to attack others. But if they’re willing to come back to the negotiating table, that’s good."

Meanwhile, Iran’s stance is also softening. President Ebrahim Raisi said Iran has the "necessary willingness" to end the war with the U.S. and Israel, emphasizing that Tehran is seeking guarantees to prevent future conflicts. During a phone call with European Council President Charles Michel, he stated that Iran "has the necessary willingness to end this war, provided that certain conditions are met—especially guarantees to prevent aggression from happening again." There’s no doubt this is a signal issued with the approval of the Revolutionary Guards, with the Guards playing the white hat and the president playing the red hat. Regardless of the outcome, there are options for retreat. This time, Iran has not mentioned compensation or similar issues, directly pointing to the core of ending this round of conflict—ensuring Iran’s long-term security. The six major conditions are now down to just one, but that one is also very difficult.

2. U.S. Motives
Previously, the market believed that the U.S. would forcibly open the Strait of Hormuz for face-saving reasons, making Iran’s blockade of the Strait a bargaining chip against the U.S. But now, some changes have occurred. Trump’s attitude toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz has shifted. Previously, Trump threatened Iran that if they didn’t open the Strait, he would attack Iran’s power plants, but now he has stated that he can accept ending the war without the Strait being open.

Trump’s reasons include:
First, the U.S. is not short of oil and remains a net oil exporter. The so-called inflation impact affects other countries more than the U.S.
Second, oil-importing countries like Europe and Japan have not supported U.S. military actions; instead, they are hindering. President Trump posted on social media on Tuesday, "All countries that cannot access aviation fuel due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—like the UK, which refuses to participate in striking Iran—here’s my advice: First, buy from the U.S., we have plenty; second, muster the courage to seize it at the Strait." Trump also said, "You need to start fighting for yourselves; the U.S. won’t help you anymore. Iran has basically been defeated. The hardest part is over. Deal with your own oil."

Third, if the U.S. withdraws and admits defeat, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would turn from a strategic ace into a liability. Because the blockade itself is a double-edged sword—if it fails to threaten, it becomes an internal slaughterhouse. War-time blockades might be understandable, but if Iran continues to blockade after a ceasefire, public opinion could turn, transforming Iran from a hero resisting the U.S. into a global energy rogue. Blocking the Strait violates international law and makes the U.S. a global economic enemy. Internally, the blockade has become a narrative of victory—sovereignty over the strait cannot be compromised; anyone who concedes is seen as betraying the country. In the longer term, this could lead neighboring countries to expand pipeline construction, diversify energy supplies, and significantly reduce the strategic value of the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, if the U.S. withdraws from the Middle East without lifting sanctions, there are costs, but these are mostly long-term and hidden. Because this means the U.S. is shirking its responsibilities in the Middle East, which could undermine the petrodollar. The Middle Eastern elites’ demand for dollars would decrease, leading to dollar depreciation and increased U.S. national debt interest. For example, the UAE has pledged to invest $14 billion in the U.S. over the next decade; if the U.S. withdraws easily, the UAE’s investments might shrink. But this impact is more long-term and can be adjusted by other factors. For instance, in recent years, the share of technology in maintaining dollar hegemony has increased, while oil’s share has declined. As long as the U.S. maintains technological dominance, a military withdrawal won’t affect dollar supremacy. Conversely, if technological dominance is lost, oil dominance becomes meaningless. Therefore, the foundation of U.S. dollar hegemony still lies in technological leadership; oil dominance is a fruit of that leadership. As long as U.S. technology remains ahead, even if the U.S. withdraws from war, dollar hegemony won’t immediately shake.

Fourth, let Iran’s internal forces play a role. When a country faces external pressure, it often becomes more united. Once external pressure is removed, internal issues may surface. Applying pressure and then easing it appropriately isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Rubio said in an interview with ABC on Monday that there are cracks within Iran, and hopes that capable reformers can come to power and cooperate with the U.S. have been received privately.

3. The Final Battle for Middle East Hegemony
Is the U.S. military really going to withdraw? A temporary withdrawal is possible because the U.S. doesn’t want to be deeply involved in the Middle East. To completely defeat Iran, the U.S. would need to organize ground troops, which is difficult to achieve. But internally, the U.S. is also facing issues—growing income inequality and rising debt. Under these circumstances, the U.S. is reluctant to invest too much in the Middle East because the main conflict now is technological rivalry. Choosing the lesser of two evils, the U.S. might cut losses and temporarily withdraw from the war. However, before withdrawing, it’s highly likely that the U.S. will launch another major operation to destroy some of Iran’s already targeted facilities, achieving certain strategic goals—both to give allies an explanation and to buy time for future attacks. After recent strikes, Iran can be pushed back further, gaining strategic buffer zones and reserving time for negotiations or further strikes.

On the evening of March 31 local time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a video speech, stating that although Iran and its supported armed groups "still pose a limited threat to Israel," they can no longer threaten Israel’s survival. However, Trump’s stance might also be a delaying tactic. Because the U.S. is verbally talking about withdrawing from the war but simultaneously increasing troop deployments. On March 31, the U.S. Navy announced that the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier strike group departed from Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia for deployment. If it arrives in a few weeks, the U.S. will have three aircraft carriers around Iran, making further military action possible.

Additionally, this kind of stance pressures U.S. allies—those with money contribute financially, and those with strength contribute militarily! Many want to watch from the sidelines, letting the U.S. do the dirty work, while criticizing the U.S. from a moral high ground. Trump is reluctant to be the fool who bears all the costs. If the U.S. signals it’s leaving, pressure shifts to Iran. If Iran continues the blockade, other countries might not tolerate it and could join the U.S. camp to resolve the crisis quickly. This involves U.S. resolve and judgment—because Iran’s growth is evident. If the U.S. chooses to fully withdraw, Iran will inevitably become a regional hegemon, which Iran’s Middle Eastern allies cannot accept.

Therefore, the U.S. cannot completely withdraw from the Middle East. Even if it temporarily halts the war, it cannot lift sanctions on Iran. Recently, Iran said it wants to resolve the 47-year-old issue entirely, and the U.S. also has such desires. Partial military strikes to thoroughly weaken Iran are also very tempting. The core issue of the U.S.-Iran war is that Iran threatens U.S. hegemony in the Middle East—either recognize Iran as the new dominant power or eliminate the potential threat. This is a decisive battle for Middle East hegemony. The winning country gains regional dominance; the losing side can do whatever it wants. Without war, regional hegemony cannot be easily transferred. It’s impossible. What can’t be achieved on the battlefield won’t be achieved at the negotiation table either.

The U.S. aims to eliminate Iran’s threat. If it doesn’t achieve that goal, it probably won’t stop. Even a temporary ceasefire isn’t the end but could mark the beginning of a new normal.