The Future Brief – The Iran War: History Says It Ends in Stalemate
Every Middle East war follows the same script. This one is no different.
I was caught off guard when Trump attacked Iran. Trump does what Putin tells him to do, but this time he did what Netanyahu told him to do. Regardless of whether it is Putin or Netanyahu orchestrating American foreign policy, we know the outcome. History tells us victory isn’t on the horizon; it will be stalemate, a brokered deal that lets both sides save face.
That’s how US-Middle East wars end, and this one is following the pattern after just a few days.
THE NEWS
📰 “Operation Midnight Hammer” Targets Iran’s Nuclear Sites
US airstrikes and cyber operations hit key Iranian nuclear, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and leadership assets.
📎 Reuters
📰 Iran Threatens Strait of Hormuz Closure, Oil Prices Surge
Iran’s parliament approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The IRGC threatens drone and mine deployments. Brent crude climbed past $77, with fears of a $120 spike if escalation continues.
📎 Reuters
📰 China Calls for De-escalation While Securing Discounted Iranian Oil
Beijing condemned the US strike, urged restraint, and reaffirmed its rights under the 2021 strategic pact for cheap Iranian oil imports.
📎 Reuters
THE PATTERN
Initial Shock and Awe → Local Retaliation and Regional Escalation → Prolonged, Indecisive Conflict → Diplomatic Pressure and Face-Saving Mediation
Middle East war cycles are surprisingly consistent: bold openings, chaotic middles, and negotiated non-endings. America’s wars in the region move through the same four stages:
1. Initial Shock and Awe
The US begins with overwhelming military force, precision airstrikes, rapid technological superiority, and declarations of limited objectives (removing a leader, eliminating terror networks, disabling nuclear facilities).
2. Local Retaliation and Regional Escalation
After the US strikes, the targeted nation, or its proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, militias), responds asymmetrically: missile attacks, insurgency tactics, cyber operations, and economic disruption (threats to global oil supplies).
3. Prolonged, Indecisive Conflict
Despite early victories, the US became entangled in long, unclear military commitments without achieving strategic goals. This results in:
No clear victory or exit strategy
Massive costs in lives, money, and credibility
Destabilization that spills into neighboring states
4. Diplomatic Pressure and Face-Saving Mediation
Eventually, third parties such as the UN, EU, China, or regional powers like Turkey or Qatar intervene to broker a face-saving compromise that allows both sides to de-escalate while claiming success.
THE HISTORY
Libya (2011–Present)
Goal: Protect civilians, remove Gaddafi.
Result: NATO’s air campaign succeeded in killing Gaddafi. Militias filled the vacuum. The state collapsed. Civil war ensued. Regional powers armed rival factions. ISIS gained ground. The country remains unstable.
Verdict: Gaddafi removed. Everything else failed. Stalemate
Iraq War (2003–2011)
Goal: Eliminate WMDs, remove Saddam Hussein.
Result: Saddam fell but no WMDs. A prolonged insurgency erupted, leading to sectarian violence and instability. The US declared the mission complete in 2011, but the withdrawal left a power vacuum. ISIS emerged and exploited the instability.
Verdict: Tactical win, strategic failure. Stalemate dressed as success.
Afghanistan War (2001–2021)
Goal: Dismantle al-Qaeda, remove the Taliban.
Result: The Taliban were quickly removed. But the insurgency lasted 20 years. The 2021 withdrawal was chaotic and the US abandoned the Afghans who supported them. The Taliban regained full control.
Verdict: A clear defeat crouched as a face-saving retreat.
Gulf War (1991)
Goal: Expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Result: The US-led coalition achieved a rapid victory. But Saddam stayed in power, crushed internal revolts, and continued to defy the West. The “end” led to a decade of no-fly zones, sanctions, and military standoffs. The conflict remained unresolved until the 2003 invasion.
Verdict: Military win, political stalemate. Face-saving diplomacy and stalemate.
HOW WE GOT HERE
Four strategic theories explain why wars like this never end in victory
Asymmetric Warfare Theory
Weak states win 28% of the time by avoiding conventional battle and using proxies, terror, and technology. That’s Iran’s entire doctrine.Strategic Culture Analysis
The US demands short wars with measurable outcomes. Iran is built for long, painful resistance justified through national honor and religion.Energy Security Logic
Iran can’t afford to close Hormuz any more than the US can allow it. That limits escalation.Great Power Competition
China, Russia, and the EU want the war stabilized quickly (they know it won’t end) to avoid recession and protect their interests; mediation becomes inevitable.
THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
Why no one can “win” this war, except the mediators
🇺🇸 United States (Schwartz: Self-Direction + Achievement)
Short-term, rule-based, results-driven. A low-context, universalist culture built for fast, clear outcomes.
🇮🇷 Iran (Schwartz: Security + Tradition)
Hierarchical, high-context, collectivist. Built to endure. Martyrdom is strategic. Suffering is part of statecraft.
🇨🇳 China (Schwartz: Security + Conformity)
Long-term planner. Risk-averse stabilizer. Plays neutral while profiting on the sidelines.
🇪🇺 European Union (Schwartz: Universalism + Benevolence)
Rules-based identity. Conflict-averse. Pushes humanitarian diplomacy to preserve economic stability.
This isn’t just a military standoff. It’s a cultural standoff between America’s need for short, simple outcomes and control and Iran’s culture of long-term, complex strategy and historic honor, with China and Europe choreographing the exit.
WHY IT MATTERS
This war is a test of multipolar diplomacy in a world where America is far less powerful.
China condemns the US strikes publicly, urges calm, and positions itself as a neutral peacemaker. Behind the scenes, it buys Iranian oil at a discount and builds soft power in the Gulf.
Russia supplies air defense systems, shares intelligence with Iran, and signals its backing without direct confrontation. For Russia, this is another opportunity to undermine US influence while avoiding costly entanglements.
Europe pushes for ceasefires, launches humanitarian aid missions, and prepares for an energy shock. It lacks hard power, but not motive: Europe needs stability. Brussels can’t stop the conflict, but it tries to keep it from boiling over.
America launches the strikes, absorbs the backlash, and finds itself isolated. Allies offer caution, not support. Rivals test limits. Oil prices rise. The domestic political cost grows. And once again, Washington is stuck managing a war it cannot end.
WHAT’S NEXT?
The Final Phase: Stalemate by Mediation (6–12 months)
Omani and Qatari diplomacy backed by China and the EU
“Freeze-for-freeze” deal – Missile restrictions in exchange for phased sanctions relief
Frozen conflict – Tensions remain, but escalation halts
Energy diversification – Accelerated shift to non-OPEC sources (Guyana, shale, Arctic)
China’s rise – Mediation role becomes normalized
Persistent proxy clashes – Iraq, Syria, Red Sea remain volatile
Probability Forecast:
60% – Mediated stalemate
25% – Regional proxy war escalation
10% – Iranian regime destabilization + nuclear breakout
5% – Ground war and uncontrolled escalation
The question isn’t whether the US can “win.”
It’s whether it still gets to define what winning means.