Seven months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a discretionary war against Iran, a conflict he initially framed as a quick “little excursion” that would wrap up in mere weeks. Today, that war remains mired in intractable deadlock, with no clear path to victory or exit for the United States – a outcome that has upended regional security and threatened global economic stability. The conflict, launched at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late February, was premised on two flawed justifications: forcing Tehran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to commercial navigation (a status quo that held before the war began) and compelling Iran to renegotiate its nuclear program. Notably, independent experts have repeatedly confirmed Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon prior to the outbreak of hostilities, undermining the core strategic rationale for the invasion. From its inception, the conflict was launched without a coherent long-term strategy. The Trump administration repeatedly downplayed expectations, echoing then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s promises that the war would be short and low-cost, while criticizing previous U.S. leaders for getting the country trapped in protracted foreign wars. Yet administration officials badly miscalculated: they severely underestimated the Iranian regime’s resilience and preparedness to repel U.S. aggression, and failed to anticipate that Iranian society would rally together around the government in response to outside attack. Despite these early missteps, Trump has repeatedly rushed to claim premature military victory, asserting that Iran’s defensive capabilities had been wiped out and that U.S. bombings had forced Tehran to the negotiating table. These claims have quickly unraveled. Not only did Tehran rebuild its offensive capabilities far faster than U.S. intelligence projected, it also secured de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz – a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies – giving Iran a powerful leverage point to pressure Washington and the international community. By May, Iran held the strategic upper hand and refused to enter any negotiations that did not address its core non-negotiable demands: a full ceasefire across all fronts, including an end to Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon; the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets held overseas; war reparations from the U.S.; formal recognition of Iran’s sovereign right to manage the Strait of Hormuz; and a permanent guarantee that the U.S. and Israel will abandon all threats of regime change and military action against Iran. In June, Trump signed a vaguely worded memorandum of understanding with Iran’s hardline IRGC-dominated leadership that aligned closely with many of these demands. But facing fierce backlash from senior Republican Party figures and Netanyahu, Trump quickly backed out of the agreement and renewed large-scale military strikes. For its part, Tehran made no effort to salvage the deal, recognizing that continued conflict serves its goal of inflicting political damage on Trump ahead of U.S. midterm elections. Since the collapse of the June memorandum, the Trump administration has reimposed a full blockade on Iranian ports to cut off Tehran’s oil revenue, while carrying out periodic airstrikes intended to intimidate the regime. These moves have done nothing to break the stalemate, with periodic exchanges of fire continuing this week: the U.S. launched strikes on Iran’s Larak Island, and the IRGC retaliated with attacks on U.S. military bases in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. With no substantive peace talks underway, the conflict remains in a dangerous, volatile limbo. Ahead of the approaching midterm elections, the Trump administration last week unveiled a sweeping new round of sanctions dubbed Operation Economic Outcast, labeled “Economic D-Day” by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The policy is designed to cripple Iran’s economy and force global isolation of the regime, but analysts widely expect it to fail, just as previous pressure campaigns have. Both China and Russia have already rejected the new sanctions as unacceptable, and none of Iran’s key neighboring states – including Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey – have committed to enforcing the measures. Only the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. and Israeli ally, has paused financial transactions and trade with Tehran. History offers little evidence that broad, unilaterally enforced sanctions force regime capitulation: the only widely cited case of successful multilateral sanctions was the campaign against South Africa’s apartheid regime. For 47 years, Iran’s Islamic government has honed strategies to evade U.S.-led sanctions, building domestic self-sufficiency and diversifying its trade network to reduce dependence on Western markets. While the Iranian public has inevitably borne the brunt of economic hardship from past sanctions, the regime has consistently survived and consolidated its control. The current round of sanctions will almost certainly deepen suffering for ordinary Iranians, but there is little reason to expect it to topple the government or force Tehran to make concessions on core demands. The ongoing standoff poses unacceptable risks to both regional and global security. Allowing the conflict to escalate further could spark a full-scale regional war, and a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would carry catastrophic costs for the global economy. The only viable path forward, according to regional analysts, is for Washington and Tehran to return to the framework of the June memorandum of understanding and resume direct, good-faith negotiations to reach a final settlement. Quiet mediation efforts led by Pakistan and Qatar continue to work behind the scenes to bring the two sides back to the table, and a growing number of Gulf states are pushing for an end to the conflict. These regional powers have increasingly come to accept Iran as a permanent major regional actor, and are moving away from relying exclusively on the U.S. for security. In a notable sign of this shift, Saudi Arabia – the wealthiest Gulf state – recently signed a mutual defense pact with NATO member Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan, with several other regional states including Egypt considering joining the agreement, a move that Iran has publicly welcomed. While the path to a lasting peace remains fraught with uncertainty and obstacles, analysts agree that diplomacy is the only viable way out of the current stalemate. This commentary, written by Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Australian National University, the University of Western Australia, and Victoria University, is republished under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation.