Climb to defuse? What options does Iran have to end the War of Israel? | News Israel-Iran Conflict

Iran has no clear ramps to put an end to his war with Israel, which could soon drag in the United States and lead to a new quagmire in the Middle East, analysts said in Al Jazeera.

Since June 13, Israel has killed at least 240 Iranians, including many civilians. The best Iranian and nuclear scientists were among the dead.

Israel struck Iran’s state television station, hit a hospital, targeted with buildings and damaged the country’s air defenses.

In response, Iran fired Ballistic missile dams In Israel, targeting military and security facilities and striking the Haifa oil refinery, residential buildings and a hospital. At least 24 people were killed in Israel following attacks.

Israel aims to destroy the Iranian nuclear program and to potentially go so far as to cause changes in regime, according to analysts.

These objectives make Iran difficult to sail quickly to the conflict. The official position of Iran is that it will not negotiate during its attack, fearing that it would be forced to fully go to us and to Israeli conditions.

Iran could rather hope that the American president Donald Trump can be convinced to brake in Israel, which could be in his interest to avoid being carried away in a distant war, even if the American leader recently seemed to promote striking Iran and reiterated that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

“If the United States recognizes the urgency of de-escalation and manage to persuade Israel to stop its military campaign, then-given the growing costs of the war for Iran and the fact that the main objective of Iran is to stop, and not to develop the conflict,” said Hamiderza Aziza, an expert on Iran for the Middle East for the reception of Hamidreza.

Few viable options

In theory, Iran could return to the negotiating table and sign an agreement under fire.

However, Iran would be forced to give up its nuclear program entirely, allowing its enemies to aggressively pursue the change of diet without fear of consequences, Analysts have already said to Al Jazeera.

This is an improbable scenario, according to Reza H Akbari, analyst on Iran and the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, the program manager of the war and reporting institute.

“The program (Iran’s Nuclear) continues to remain a lever effect for Iran, which even allows them to engage with the United States. Abandonment would be a shocking development that I do not plan for the moment,” he told Al Jazeera.

The United States and Iran had already engaged in five cycles of negotiations before Israel triggered the conflict.

The two parties had reached an impasse when Trump demanded that Iran abandon his entire nuclear program, that each country has an “inalienable right” to use for peaceful purposes, according to the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, to which Iran is signatory.

Trump has since warned Iran to quickly go to an agreement or to face even more disastrous repercussions, referring to the change of diet.

Iran has some good options, said Negar Mortazavi, an expert in Iran at the Center for International Policy (CIP).

She thinks that Iran does not have much to lose by retaliation against Israel, but also notes that the strategy would not necessarily give Tehran a way to get out of the conflict.

“If Iran does not retaliate after each attack (Iranian officials) think that (Israeli attacks) will become more difficult and I think they are correct,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “But each time (Iran) retaliated, they give Israel the excuse to attack them again.”

Pressure from the United States?

During the last year, Iran’s regional influence has undergone major setbacks, leaving it vulnerable geopolitically.

Iran has long been based on its ally, the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah, to dissuade direct Israeli attacks, but Hezbollah was considerably weakened after having fought a total war against Israel last year.

In addition, Iran lost another ally when former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was overthrown in December 2024.

Iran could still direct attacks on the American bases and staff through a network of armed groups supported by Iran in the region, in particular in Iraq, said that Barbara Slavin, Iran expert and a distinguished member of the Stimson Center thinking group.

She thinks that groups supported by Iran in Iraq could draw “warning photos” to try to exploit American public opinion.

Trump’s nationalist “America First” basis remains Unable to any American involvement in wars abroad, which they consider as unrelated to their domestic concerns.

And anti-interventionist feelings are likely to increase if American troops are endangered due to any attack linked to the conflict with Iran.

“The thoughts of the Americans who died in this case would make even more controversial (the United States) than it is already,” said Slavin to Al Jazeera.

Iran could also ensure that Americans feel the impact of war economically. He threatened to attack sales ships in the Hormuz Strait, which would affect world trade and increase oil prices. But Slavin said that this decision would also seriously harm Iran’s economy.

Slavin has added that Iran is also based on commercial navigation in the Hormuz Strait, which is between Iran and Oman and is one of the most important shipping routes to the world, to export oil. Instead, Slavin said Iran’s best option was to contain war with Israel and wait for the conflict, arguing that any maneuver to degenerate against American staff, even as a warning, is a risky gambit.

Trump’s administration, which includes many war hawks, explicitly warned Iran not to target its assets or soldiers.

Iran is also wary of giving the United States an easy pretext to enter the war directly on behalf of Israel, Akbari said.

“Iran’s leadership knows that the United States further in the war could be catastrophic for the regime and in terms of industrial damage. (This could destroy) all that Iran has built in the past 40 years,” said Akbari.

Strategic calculation

The official position of Iran is to inflict a significant political, military and material cost on Israel to encourage war.

This position was taken over by Hassan Ahmadian, assistant professor at the University of Tehran, who suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could arrest war if the Israelis feel the impact of a crisis he prompted.

“Iranians are completely convinced that they can impose enough reprisals to have Israel arrested (his attacks),” Ahmadian told Al Jazeera.

It is not known how much Iran damage does the military infrastructure of Israel, because the latter prohibits the media from reporting this information.

In addition, it is difficult to assess how long Iran can support a war against Israel.

But Israel himself can find it difficult to attack for an extended period without the United States, said Slavin.

It has referred to the media relationships that Israel is with a low defensive interception, which could make it more vulnerable to Iran’s long -term strikes.

The challenges faced by the two enemies could encourage them to end the fights as soon as possible – at least that seems to be what Iran bets on.

“Right now, Iran is trying to curl up and go through it,” said Slavin.

“No external power will save Iran. It’s up to them (to save themselves),” she told Al Jazeera.