The US-Iran conflict has been ongoing for over a month, with recent signs of peace talks emerging. Even if peace talks occur, the intensity of the conflict is not necessarily guaranteed to decrease, with possibilities of intermittent fighting, fighting and talking simultaneously, and prolonged conflict remaining.
The eventual outcome of this conflict has become a focus of discussion among various think tanks. Observers, synthesizing multiple viewpoints, have presented four scenarios.
<h2>Four Possible Endings</h2>
Several experts from US think tanks have indicated that US President Trump is now seeking a viable &#34;off-ramp&#34; rather than &#34;continuing to climb the escalation ladder.&#34; Overall, there are four possible paths for the outcome.
Path One: Unilaterally Declaring Victory and Reducing Military Involvement.
This is considered the most politically realistic way to exit. The White House has consistently touted the achievements of its military strikes against Iran, creating political groundwork for Trump to &#34;declare victory and reduce military involvement,&#34; thus forming some kind of &#34;ending with a victorious stance.&#34; If, in the coming weeks, Iran's direct threats to US forces in the Middle East, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US mainland decrease, Trump is likely to define the current phase as &#34;major objectives achieved&#34; and shift the conflict to a lower-intensity stage of deterrence and sanctions.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/bba1a106-314b-470d-9224-7679b083cc9b.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/bba1a106-314b-470d-9224-7679b083cc9b.png"/>
This photo, taken in Tehran, Iran, on March 29, shows a damaged building that was severely damaged in US-Iran strikes that morning. Photo by Xinhua News Agency reporter Shadati.
However, this does not mean the war will truly end. In the short term, Trump can claim victory domestically, but in the long term, the US will face an Iran that, though weakened, still seeks revenge, and the issue of passage through the Strait of Hormuz will not be fundamentally resolved. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former US State Department Middle East negotiator, vividly stated: &#34;Trump has built himself a box called 'the Iran war,' and now he can't find a way out.&#34;
Path Two: Forced Ceasefire, Limited Ceasefire, or Mediated Ceasefire.
This is the most discussed outcome. George Biber and Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft argue that current US military actions against Iran cannot achieve the goal of &#34;eliminating threats&#34; and must shift to a strategy of &#34;management rather than resolution,&#34; enabling an honorable exit through an agreement involving multilateral compromise. Any viable exit path requires both sides to be able to claim &#34;some degree of victory.&#34;
A report by the European Crisis Research Organization points out that neither the US nor Israel or Iran can achieve a decisive victory. The most urgent task is not to solve all problems, but to achieve an immediate mutual ceasefire. The report indicates that all parties actually have narrative space to claim victory. After a ceasefire, many thorny issues, such as Iran's nuclear capabilities and missile program, US sanctions and troop presence, and Israel's security strategy, will continue to fester, but the cost of the current war has become unbearable. Rather than risking an uncontrolled escalation by attempting to solve all problems immediately, it is better to first cease fire, take a step back, and then gradually resolve these difficult issues through diplomatic channels.
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that Iran's nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz are the two main priorities for the US. The former cannot be resolved through military means and must be addressed through negotiations and internationally verified mechanisms agreed upon by multiple parties.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/d81bd986-bc64-4a90-ad4e-be7438c460ac.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/d81bd986-bc64-4a90-ad4e-be7438c460ac.png"/>
This photo released by the Royal Thai Navy on March 11 shows a Thai cargo ship on fire after being attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. Photo courtesy of the Royal Thai Navy/Xinhua.
However, the key to the ceasefire path is mutual trust between the two sides, but this foundation has been severely damaged. Even if a ceasefire is reached, its implementation and maintenance will be extremely fragile. The US's &#34;black record&#34; of repeatedly launching strikes during negotiations has severely undermined US-Iran mutual trust, and the Iranian government has shown its determination to respond to &#34;aggressors&#34; with &#34;defensive actions.&#34; Divisions between the US and Israel are also gradually appearing, affecting the outcome of the conflict.
Path Three: Long-Term Low-Intensity Confrontation.
If there is no genuine military victory and no politically acceptable ceasefire, the most likely scenario is a state of &#34;cooling conflict but ongoing confrontation.&#34;
Think tanks such as the Stimson Center and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy analyze that Iran still has the capability to exert continuous pressure through missiles, drones, and maritime threats, while it is difficult for the US to completely eliminate Iranian threats without incurring higher risks.
In this scenario, the conflict will shift from concentrated airstrikes to a long-term war of attrition. Although the intensity will decrease on the surface, it will be more difficult to resolve. This outcome involves neither formal peace nor clear victory, only recurring low-intensity confrontations. If the military conflict with Iran becomes protracted, the US will have to bear the long-term costs of military expenditure, energy market volatility, and the binding of global strategic resources in the Middle East.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/f85f2321-05a7-44ba-9e27-6feeca88fc09.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/f85f2321-05a7-44ba-9e27-6feeca88fc09.png"/>
This photo, taken on March 17 at a gas station in El Monte, California, USA. Photo by Zeng Hui/Xinhua.
Haass predicts that the most likely outcome of the conflict is not peace, nor victory, but &#34;a chaotic Middle East, with recurrent but limited violence, Iran playing a significant role in the Strait of Hormuz, and an insufficient nuclear arrangement.&#34; If the Trump administration favors declaring victory and reducing its involvement in the region, this state of chaos is more likely to become a reality.
Path Four: Escalation into a Larger Regional War.
This is the path with the highest &#34;tail risk&#34; but cannot be underestimated. &#34;Tail risk&#34; in finance and risk management refers to the risk of extreme events with low probability and high loss. As long as the US and Israel continue to contain and strike shipping lanes and energy facilities related to Iran, the conflict could escalate from a regional war into a regional energy security crisis, drawing major economies in Europe and Asia into it. The chain reaction would affect European energy security, global inflation expectations, and great power strategic competition.
<h2>A Binary Proposition</h2>
Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, places this war within his &#34;Big Cycle&#34; theoretical framework, summarizing the outcome with a binary proposition: &#34;Everything depends on who controls the Strait of Hormuz. If the US cannot control its navigation, it will be seen as having lost this war, the consequences of which could be like the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, which marked the decline of British imperial hegemony.&#34;
The Suez Canal crisis, also known as the Second Arab-Israeli War, was a military action launched by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt in 1956 to seize control of the Suez Canal. The actions of Britain, France, and Israel were widely condemned by the international community. Under immense international pressure, Britain and France were forced to accept the ceasefire resolution, and Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.
Dalio stated: &#34;This current war is a matter of life and death for the Iranian leadership. At the same time, the American public is worried about high oil prices, and American leaders are worried about the midterm congressional elections. This war tests the endurance of all parties.&#34;
He also believes that Iran's rumored agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers trading in non-US dollars could threaten the petrodollar system that underpins US financial hegemony.
Xinhua News Agency
Risk Disclosure and Disclaimer
Markets involve risks; investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it consider the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinion, view, or conclusion in this article is suitable for their specific circumstances. Investment based on this is at the user's own risk.

The US-Iran conflict has lasted for over a month, with recent signs of peace talks emerging. Observers have proposed four possible outcomes for the conflict: 1. The US unilaterally declares victory and reduces military involvement, potentially ending with a "victorious stance"; 2. A forced or limited ceasefire, requiring multilateral compromise for an honorable exit. Experts point out that current military actions cannot eliminate the threats and a shift to strategic management is needed

Xinhua News Agency: What Are the Possible Endings to the Iran Conflict?