Geopolitical intelligence risk advisory firm Global Situational Awareness has been providing the security community with daily and weekly briefings of the ongoing situation in the Middle East, and these are likely to continue for as long as the conflict does. But what might the end of the war with Iran look like? In this special blog for Global Situational Awareness, Paul Ainscough explores three different potential scenarios.
Key takeaways of this piece will include the idea that the joint US-Israel war against Iran has experienced significant strategic ambiguity, with initial goals of regime change conflicting with stated aims of neutralising nuclear and conventional capabilities, that while Trump has stated his hope of a Venezuela-style outcome in Iran, leadership removals have failed to result in more moderate individuals coming to power, with more extreme officials instead replacing them.
A US withdrawal without a negotiated settlement could leave Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz, forcing an international coalition to address the global energy crisis while leaving unresolved flashpoints that would essentially freeze the conflict. And, despite Trump’s optimism, a massive diplomatic gap exists between Washington and Tehran, casting doubt on the likelihood of a deal being reached.
Introduction: Strategic ambiguity and the search for an off-ramp
When the United States (US) and Israel launched joint operations against Iran on 28 February 2026, there was considerable confusion regarding the strategic objectives. During the opening stages, US President Donald Trump asserted that he wanted “freedom for the people of Iran”, fuelling speculation that he wanted regime change. He also called upon Iranians to “take over your government”, warning that it would “be probably your only chance for generations”. The killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many other leaders during the initial wave of strikes was consistent with objectives. However, since then US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have otherwise insisted that the mission was focused on eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities and conventional threats. Adding to the confusion, on 19 March 2026, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard admitted that the aims between the US and Israel were not aligned. While Jerusalem was focused on destabilising the leadership, the US was prioritising destroying the country’s missile programme and navy. On 01 April 2026, Trump claimed that “regime change was not our goal”, while simultaneously maintaining that it had already occurred as a result of Khamenei’s death. Such comments could easily be intended to prevent critics from arguing that he had failed to achieve his objective.
It should come as little surprise, given the mixed messaging surrounding the war, that there is also a lot of debate regarding how the conflict will end. On 01 April 2026, Trump stated that military action in Iran could end in “two or three weeks”, potentially without a deal being brokered with Tehran. Despite multiple signs suggesting that further escalation could come, he is believed to be eager to end the war by the end of his initial four-to-six week deadline. With midterm elections scheduled for November 2026 and Trump’s approval rating sinking to below 40%, continuing the war could be politically costly. As such, analysts are now increasingly interested in what kind of an off-ramp Washington could end up pursuing and what the implications will be.
Scenario one: Another Venezuela
Trump has described how US intervention unfolded in Venezuela as “the perfect scenario” for Iran. When former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was abducted along with his wife, Cilia Flores, on 03 January 2026, as part of Operation Absolute Resolve, it set the country on a very different path. Since then, the country has entered a volatile period of stabilisation. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has sworn in as acting president. Her preparedness to cooperate with Washington, passing laws to allow the privatisation of the oil sector and release political prisoners. In exchange, the US has removed broad oil sanctions.
Unlike in Venezuela, the removal of Iran’s leadership has failed to result in more moderate individuals coming to power. Instead, more hardline officials have ascended into control. With the country’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, considered to be more extreme and anti-Western than his father, it is difficult to envision how another Venezuela scenario can play out in Iran without significant further leadership removals. Even if the US and/or Israel successfully removes the new Supreme Leader, or many others senior regime members, anger at the situation is likely to result in other hardliners replacing them.
Scenario two: Pulling the plug without a deal
Trump has reportedly told aides that he would be willing to end the war without securing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait has become a central anxiety for Washington’s allies since Tehran forced its effective closure with strikes on commercial shipping. With approximately 20% of global oil and gas transiting through the waterway, energy prices have spiked, leading to energy emergencies in countries around the world. While the US has intensified its strikes in a bid to bring the regime to the negotiating table, there has been little indication that Tehran is willing to resolve the matter diplomatically.
With Trump stating that the countries which are dependent on oil passing through the Strait “must take care of that passage”, there are signs that he could shift the burden of reopening the waterway onto other countries. The United Kingdom is hosting a gathering of foreign ministers from 40 countries to discuss options to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Should the war end with a US withdrawal and no negotiated settlement, there is a risk of the region entering a state of unresolved escalation where unresolved flashpoints, such as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme, remain problematic. Without a deal, it remains plausible that Iran could seek to exploit the situation further by continuing to hold the world economy to ransom over the Strait. There have been reports of ships paying millions of dollars for safe passage. Such an outcome would be a noteworthy foreign policy failing by the US, causing a great degree of anger on the international stage. Whereas Iran would essentially get what it wants in a ceasefire and control of the chokepoint. There is no precedent for a prolonged closure of the Strait. An international coalition may be required to step in and address the situation.
It also remains possible that Israel could continue military operations even if the US withdrew. After all, without a deal deemed suitable by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Jerusalem is likely to feel that Washington left before the job was done. Although the extent to which Israel can continue a campaign with US support remains unclear. If both countries pull out without a settlement, it is likely that the conflict will be frozen, with the same flashpoints likely to cause further escalations in years to come.
Scenario three: A deal is reached
Trump has previously outlined his confidence in reaching a deal. Although he has said that negotiations had been going “extremely well”, Iranian officials have repeatedly downplayed or denied that any talks had been held. Tehran has rejected Washington’s 15-point ceasefire plan, which it transmitted to Iran via Pakistan. The terms included a one-month ceasefire, a handover of highly enriched uranium stockpiles, a halt to further enrichment, curbs on the ballistic missile programme, and an end to support for regional proxies. Iran’s counterproposal called for a halt to aggression and killings, concrete guarantees against recurrence, reparations, an end to hostilities against Iran’s allies and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. The significant gap between the two country’s on the matter cast strong doubt on the potential for a deal to be agreed. With Trump repeatedly assuring markets and US voters that the conflict will conclude in the near future, Iranian leaders may feel that the best course of action is to weather the storm.
Conclusion: Anything is possible
Events in the Middle East are fast-moving and distinguishing between which statements and threats are serious from those that are merely posturing intended to improve respective negotiating positions has been an ongoing challenge. At the time of writing, anything remains possible. It could be the case that a ground incursion leads to yet another escalation, prolonging the war and complicating off-ramp options even further. While many countries around the Gulf and beyond will be hoping for an end, achieving this looks to be a very difficult endeavour. The International Energy Agency has described the disruption as the worst oil shock in history. The fact that ending the war with Iran does not necessarily end the Strait of Hormuz crisis is illustrative of the importance of resolving the conflict in a permanent and sustainable manner.
For more Middle East news, click here
