Why the Iran-US conflict cannot be solved by force alone Foreign Affairs analysis

“Military pressure has reached its limits, and diplomacy remains the only realistic path forward.” This is the central argument of a recent Foreign Affairs analysis examining the collapse of the latest U.S.-Iran understanding and the broader strategic consequences of renewed confrontation in the Middle East. The article argues that Washington and Tehran remain trapped in a cycle of escalation because both sides have fundamentally different visions of regional security, while military action has failed to achieve decisive political outcomes.

The analysis begins with the breakdown of a memorandum of understanding reportedly reached between Iran and the United States in Switzerland. According to the article, the agreement collapsed because Tehran and Washington interpreted key provisions differently, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz. While Iran viewed the arrangement as a limited commitment to ensure safe commercial passage under certain conditions, the United States expected unrestricted freedom of navigation. The author argues that this gap in expectations made the agreement unsustainable from the beginning.

A major theme of the article is that neither Washington nor Tehran benefits from a prolonged conflict. The piece suggests that Iran sees the war as externally imposed and remains focused on defending its sovereignty, while the United States risks being distracted from its broader strategic priority: reducing its military and political burden in West Asia in order to concentrate on competition in the Indo-Pacific.

The article challenges the assumption that military pressure can force Iran into political submission. It argues that despite significant strikes against Iranian infrastructure and leadership, Tehran has demonstrated resilience and maintained control over its political system. According to the analysis, this reality means Iran cannot be excluded from any future regional security framework.

A central focus of the article is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. The author argues that Iran increasingly views control over maritime access as a matter of national security rather than simply economic leverage. Tehran’s restrictions on shipping, the article claims, are intended to deter further military pressure rather than permanently disrupt global trade. However, the analysis also acknowledges that excessive use of this leverage could encourage other countries to develop alternative energy routes and reduce Iran’s strategic influence.

The article proposes that a long-term solution requires a broader regional security arrangement involving Iran, Gulf states, and external powers. It argues that diplomacy should focus on realistic goals, including nonaggression commitments, nuclear guarantees, sanctions relief, and economic cooperation.

One of the most controversial aspects of the analysis is its criticism of Israel’s role in regional tensions. The author argues that Israeli policies have complicated U.S. efforts to reduce escalation with Iran and that Washington must reassess its approach toward its closest Middle Eastern ally. This argument reflects a broader debate over whether U.S. policy in the region should prioritise strategic disengagement or continued support for existing alliances.

The article concludes by calling for a new security architecture built by regional states themselves rather than imposed by outside powers. It argues that lasting stability in West Asia cannot be achieved through military dominance or exclusion of major regional actors, but only through dialogue, economic integration, and mutual security arrangements.

By Vugar Khalilov