Three weeks into the U.S. and Israel military campaign against Iran in mid-March 2026, the conflict shows no clear end. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that what began without an imminent nuclear or direct missile threat — a “war of choice” — has shifted into circumstances the Iranian government treats as existential, prompting broader regional escalation. Tehran has effectively disrupted passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for roughly 20% of global crude and natural gas flows, and leadership shocks inside Iran have clouded prospects for de-escalation. U.S. political messaging has been uneven, and Sadjadpour warns that claiming a quick, decisive victory appears unlikely.
Key Takeaways
- Three weeks after the start of U.S.–Israel operations in Iran (mid-March 2026), the conflict remains open-ended with no agreed endgame.
- Karim Sadjadpour (Carnegie) says the campaign began as a “war of choice” but has morphed into a perceived “war of necessity” for Iran amid threats to regime survival.
- Iran has substantially impeded transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries about 20% of the world’s crude oil and natural gas.
- Israel announced it killed Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council; his death is seen as a strategic blow to regime continuity.
- The newly named supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has unclear actual authority, increasing uncertainty inside Iran’s decision-making “black box.”
- Sadjadpour judges a global expansion into a wider great-power war unlikely given China and Russia’s calculated ties with Gulf states.
- Key unresolved issues for any negotiated settlement include Iran’s highly enriched uranium, ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and its regional proxies.
Background
The current confrontation intensified following a series of strikes and counterstrikes beginning in early March 2026; by mid-March the U.S. and Israel had launched sustained operations that expanded beyond air and cyber attacks. U.S. officials framed intervention in part as a response to Iranian repression of domestic protests earlier in the year and to disruptions in regional security, while Israeli authorities cited direct threats to their territory. Historically, tensions between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran have cycled between covert pressure and limited military engagements; this episode differs in its speed of regionalization and visible economic implications for global energy markets.
Iran’s strategic posture has long relied on asymmetric tools: proxies across Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and missile and drone forces that complicate conventional responses. The regime also benefits from a narrative of resistance that can be amplified when leaders are targeted, creating an elevated risk that attacks meant to degrade capabilities instead deepen domestic solidarity. At the same time, Tehran’s external diplomatic options are constrained; Sadjadpour and other analysts note Iran has relatively few dependable international security patrons, which shapes both its choices and the calculations of potential mediators.
Main Event
From the outset, U.S. and Israeli strikes focused on degrading Iranian military infrastructure and command nodes, but Iran appears to have moved quickly to regionalize the fight, targeting Persian Gulf states and maritime routes. Iranian forces have taken steps that officials say amount to controlling or constraining traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a development with immediate effects on shipping and insurance costs. The U.S. military responded with heightened deployments to the Gulf and diplomatic outreach to Gulf partners to coordinate maritime security and deterrence.
Inside Iran, leadership changes have added a layer of unpredictability. Mojtaba Khamenei was named supreme leader recently, but analysts stress that his real operational authority is not transparent. The reported killing of Ali Larijani, a long-serving national security chief and expected adviser, removed a figure with decades of policy experience, a loss observers say could either fragment decision-making or harden the regime’s resolve. Those dynamics feed into Tehran’s assessment that its regime faces an existential threat, altering its calculus toward defensive measures that others read as escalatory.
On the American side, presidential statements on objectives have varied — from seeking a new nuclear accord to envisioning regime change — creating confusion among allies and military planners. Sadjadpour contends that inconsistent public goals have made coherent diplomacy harder and constrained coalition strategy. The combination of battlefield attrition, economic disruption from maritime chokepoints, and leadership shocks inside Iran has produced a conflict that is more protracted and complex than many policymakers anticipated.
Analysis & Implications
Strategically, a shift from “choice” to “necessity” matters because it changes risk tolerances. When a government views survival as at stake, it is likelier to accept higher costs and to mobilize ideational resources — including martyrdom narratives — that sustain prolonged resistance. For external actors, that raises the threshold for decisive military solutions that can safely terminate the conflict without unintended blowback.
Economically, continued disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz threaten energy market stability. Even temporary constrictions raise freight and insurance rates, push crude prices higher, and erode predictable supply chains for import-dependent economies. Such economic stress can ripple into political instability elsewhere, especially in states that rely on subsidized energy or have narrow fiscal buffers.
Diplomatically, the lack of reliable third-party guarantors for Iran complicates negotiated settlements. Sadjadpour notes China and Russia maintain ties with Gulf states that make them unlikely to intervene militarily on Iran’s behalf; nevertheless, those powers may still provide political cover or economic support short of direct confrontation, shaping any post-conflict architecture. A durable settlement would need to address nuclear materials, missile and drone arsenals, and proxy networks — complex, multifaceted topics that cannot be resolved in a single agreement.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Typical Share | Current Disruption |
|---|---|---|
| Global crude & gas transit via Strait of Hormuz | ~20% | Substantially reduced/volatile (mid-March 2026) |
| Notable political leadership losses in Iran (recent) | Low turnover at top levels | Death of Ali Larijani (head of Supreme NSC) |
These figures offer a snapshot: the Strait of Hormuz typically carries about one-fifth of global oil and gas flows, so interruptions quickly affect global markets. Leadership attrition at Iran’s top echelons, such as Larijani’s reported death, raises questions about institutional continuity and the regime’s capacity to negotiate. Taken together, economic and political shocks heighten the prospect of a drawn-out conflict with broad regional consequences.
Reactions & Quotes
U.S. political leaders have varied in their public aim, a point that analysts say undermines allied coherence. Critics argue that without a clear diplomatic strategy, military gains risk being temporary and could inflame anti-U.S. sentiment across the region.
“I don’t want to declare victory — there’s no reason to,” paraphrased from a presidential exchange, reflecting reluctance to mark the campaign as concluded.
U.S. President (public remarks)
Karim Sadjadpour characterized the transformation of the conflict and cautioned that Iran’s domestic narrative of sacrifice complicates efforts to force a rapid end.
“What began as a war of choice has actually morphed into a war of necessity,” said Sadjadpour, underscoring the changed stakes for Tehran.
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Regional governments expressed alarm over maritime security and economic fallout, pressing for coordinated maritime patrols and diplomatic engagement to keep trade routes open.
Regional officials called for stronger international measures to safeguard shipping and deter further attacks on commercial traffic.
Gulf government statements (regional authorities)
Unconfirmed
- The precise status and location of Iran’s reported highly enriched uranium remain publicly unverified and subject to competing claims.
- The real extent of Mojtaba Khamenei’s decision-making authority is unclear; external analysts lack full access to internal power dynamics.
- Attribution and operational details behind some recent strikes, including responsibility claims, are not independently confirmed at this time.
Bottom Line
The conflict that began in early March 2026 has shown signs of escalation and entrenchment: Iran’s moves to constrain the Strait of Hormuz and internal leadership shocks change both the tactical battlefield and strategic objectives. What U.S. and Israeli policymakers framed initially as limited options without imminent nuclear threat now faces a counterparty that perceives its existence to be at risk, a condition that typically extends conflicts rather than ends them quickly.
Resolving the crisis will require more than military pressure: negotiators must address nuclear materials, missiles and drones, proxy networks, and the underlying political grievances inside Iran that helped precipitate the confrontation. For outside actors, the most realistic near-term aim is stabilizing maritime traffic and preventing wider regional spillover while pushing for a multilateral framework to manage the longer-term security and nonproliferation questions.