After renewed US and Iran strikes, how could the conflict end?

Background to the renewed strikes

In the weeks following a series of air and naval engagements, the United States and Iran have exchanged fire in the Gulf region. Both sides cite retaliation for alleged violations of international law, and the escalation has sparked concern across diplomatic circles. The latest strikes have revived discussions about how the confrontation might finally be resolved.

Key diplomatic channels still open

Despite the violence, several diplomatic avenues remain functional. The United Nations continues to host informal talks, while European mediators have offered to shuttle envoys between Washington and Tehran. Moreover, back‑channel communications through trusted third parties, such as Qatar and Oman, have historically helped de‑escalate similar crises.

Official statements from the U.S. Department of State emphasize a willingness to engage in "direct talks" if Iran ceases hostile actions. Tehran, for its part, references the United Nations Charter as a framework for any negotiated settlement.

Expert perspectives

BBC interviews with three regional specialists reveal a range of expectations about an imminent end to the conflict.

Dr. Laila Hassan, senior fellow at the International Crisis Group

"The most realistic scenario involves a phased disengagement. First, both sides need to halt offensive operations, followed by a confidence‑building period that includes prisoner exchanges and the reopening of commercial shipping lanes."

Dr. Hassan stresses that any durable solution will require external guarantors, likely the European Union, to monitor compliance. She also notes that economic sanctions on Iran have created leverage for the United States, but warns that excessive pressure could push Tehran toward further defiance.

Professor Michael O'Leary, Middle East specialist at Georgetown University

"A diplomatic breakthrough will depend on Tehran’s perception of its regional standing. If Iran feels isolated, it may seek a negotiated settlement to avoid further erosion of its influence."

Professor O'Leary points to recent diplomatic overtures from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as signs that regional actors are prepared to play a mediating role. He suggests that a multilateral framework, perhaps under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council, could provide the necessary security assurances for both parties.

Ambassador Sara Al‑Mansoori, former UN envoy for the Middle East

"The United Nations can act as a neutral platform for dialogue, but only if both Washington and Tehran are willing to accept a UN‑led verification mechanism."

Ambassador Al‑Mansoori highlights the importance of a credible verification regime to monitor ceasefire compliance. She also recommends that the United Nations Security Council adopt a resolution that links any further military escalation to automatic sanctions, creating a deterrent against renewed hostilities.

Possible pathways to deescalation

Combining the insights of the three experts, several concrete steps emerge as potential pathways to end the conflict:

1. Immediate ceasefire. A mutually agreed pause in hostilities, monitored by an international observer mission, would create the breathing space needed for negotiations.
2. Prisoner and asset exchange. Both sides have detained personnel and seized equipment. An agreed swap could build trust.
3. Economic incentives. Targeted relief from sanctions in exchange for verifiable restraint could motivate Tehran to engage.
4. Regional security forum. A platform that includes Gulf states, Israel, and European powers could address broader security concerns that fuel the conflict.
5. UN verification mechanism. A robust monitoring system, possibly under the United Nations, would assure compliance and reduce the risk of accidental escalation.

Each step requires careful sequencing. Experts agree that a premature ceasefire without verification could lead to a rapid breakdown, while delayed action might allow the conflict to spiral further.

Regional and global implications

The outcome of the US‑Iran confrontation will reverberate far beyond the Gulf. Shipping routes that carry a significant portion of global oil supplies could remain vulnerable, affecting energy markets worldwide. Additionally, the conflict influences the strategic calculations of Russia, China, and NATO members, each of which has a stake in regional stability.

For European economies, the prospect of renewed sanctions on Iran raises concerns about energy security and trade. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern allies of the United States, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, are closely monitoring any diplomatic overtures that might shift the balance of power.

International institutions, particularly the United Nations, stand to either gain credibility through successful mediation or suffer reputational damage if the conflict escalates further. The involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross in humanitarian monitoring could also shape public perception of the parties involved.

What a resolution could look like

In a best‑case scenario, a negotiated settlement would involve a phased withdrawal of forces, the establishment of a demilitarized maritime corridor, and a framework for addressing long‑standing grievances such as nuclear proliferation concerns. The United States might agree to a limited rollback of sanctions in exchange for verifiable limits on Iran’s missile program.

Such an agreement would likely be codified in a multilateral treaty overseen by the United Nations and supported by regional powers. Implementation would require sustained diplomatic engagement, transparent reporting, and a willingness from both sides to compromise on core issues.

While the path to peace is fraught with challenges, the convergence of expert analysis, regional pressure, and international mechanisms offers a roadmap that could prevent further bloodshed and restore stability to a volatile region.