Middle East conflict looks increasingly like war nobody can win

It concludes that if winning means forcing submission or regime change, the US and Israel cannot win. The article suggests the only viable path may be managing, containing, and enduring the conflict, framing it as a perpetual struggle rather than a decisive victory.

The article describes ceasefires as being extended not due to breakthroughs but due to constraint, and warns that sustained conflict risks global economic shocks through stressed energy markets and disrupted supply chains.

It highlights that Israel appears to pursue maximal outcomes, including deep weakening or regime change in Iran, while the US oscillates between coercion, containment, and negotiation, leading to a lack of a unified objective.

The article notes that the United States is estimated to have used about 45-50% of key missile stockpiles, including roughly 30% of its Tomahawk missile inventory. It argues that escalation is limited by capacity as well as willingness.

The piece describes the battlefield extending into shipping lanes and energy markets, with disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz described as pressure points with global consequences. Iran aims to entangle adversaries rather than achieve battlefield dominance.

The article argues that victory over Iran would look different for Tehran than for Washington and Jerusalem: Iran aims to survive, not to defeat its adversaries. It notes a military imbalance in favor of the US and Israel, but that tactical success has not translated into political outcomes, with Iran's governing system and its networks remaining intact.