Two months since the US and Israel launched a joint surprise attack on Iran, negotiations appear deadlocked, as competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz continue to disrupt global energy supplies, and the future of Iran’s nuclear programme remains unresolved.

In a sign of the continuing standoff, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly on Tuesday said the US was still engaging with Iran on negotiations but would “not be rushed into making a bad deal”, a day after US President Donald Trump and his top security advisers discussed a new Iranian proposal ‌on resolving the war.

All military options remain on the table, despite a ceasefire in force since April 8 having paused the conflict. Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday cautioned against the possibility of a “frozen conflict”, where the critical waterway is used as a pressure card amid the possibility of violent flare-ups.

The US president has envisioned the possibility of suspending a military campaign against Tehran while reserving the option of carrying out targeted strikes as needed.

In the absence of a permanent deal that allows both sides to claim victory, analysts say a low-intensity conflict interspersed with periodic strikes offers a convenient way out – albeit one that prolongs regional instability and global economic disruption.

The cost of a ‘frozen’ war

The war between the US and Iran can already be described as “frozen”, but this no-war-no-deal scenario comes at too high a cost for both parties, Mehran Kamrava, an expert on Iran at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

“Iran cannot afford to have its ports blocked indefinitely and neither can the US maintain an indefinite blockade of Iran,” Kamrava said. “For the time being, we might see a short-term frozen conflict, but this cannot continue for several months or years.”

The American foreign policy think tank Quincy Institute estimated that Washington’s costs incurred over the first month of the war were between $20bn and $25bn. A large-scale ground operation in Iran similar to that of Iraq in 2003 would require at least 500,000 personnel and some $55bn a month, or more than $650bn a year, and the think tank warns this would still be a significant underestimate.

A continuation of the current state of affairs would therefore have economic benefits in the short term, but a simmering conflict, with no clear conclusion, would also be expensive for the US – both economically and politically.

The US military has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports and vessels since April 13. Last week, it deployed a third aircraft carrier strike group with thousands of elite troops, in the largest buildup since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. More than 10,000 US troops are estimated to have been deployed to the region.

Iran’s own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to ships not paying a toll has been felt in the US, where the average price of petrol at the pump has reached nearly $4.18 a gallon ($1.10 a litre), the highest level in nearly four years. This comes in advance of midterm elections in November, for which polls show Trump’s approval ratings trending at a low 34 percent, compared with 47 percent when he took office for his second presidential term in January 2025.

Iranian strikes have also caused billions of dollars in damage to US military assets in the region and tested ties between Washington and its Gulf allies, which have seen major industrial and energy sites hit by Iran, as well as their reputations as safe havens for business damaged by the war.

Kamrava said the US economy would be able to absorb the economic shock caused by the war. “Whether the American political system can afford it is a different question,” he added.

Prolonged versus protracted conflict

In Trump’s initial projection, the war in Iran was intended to last “four to five weeks”. Two months into the conflict, Chandler Williams, researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), says the prolonged conflict has lasted longer than forecast.

“When a state or a government relies heavily on precision air strike power, it often causes escalation rather than resolution because it doesn’t allow for any off boards, and that’s what we’re seeing right now,” Williams said.

While a prolonged conflict is usually the product of miscalculation, a protracted one is stirred on by design. “The question now is whether this prolonged conflict is becoming a protracted one,” he added.

Washington is betting on sustained economic and diplomatic pressure backed by Trump’s constant threat to renew strikes to see if it can “finish what air strikes alone cannot achieve”, Williams said.

For its part, Iran is aware of the US’s military superiority and has opted for leveraging the Strait of Hormuz until the US decides that a negotiated settlement is preferable. “Iran is betting that the US may not escalate any further, but a truly protracted conflict would be difficult to sustain in the long term,” he said.

A report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) earlier this month found the military escalation to be affecting employment and livelihoods in Iran through disruptions to economic activity, mobility, and supply chains.

Much of Iran’s grain imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping route for Tehran, as well. Shipping disruptions around the strait have raised concerns about delays to grain shipments, the UNDP said, tightening the domestic supply and increasing food insecurity risks in the country of 90 million people.

“In Iran’s case, the calculus is about whether they can withstand that cost while still inflicting the cost of shutting down a significant portion of the global economy, and if that helps them get to a better deal at the negotiating table,” Williams said.

‘Mowing the grass’ in Iran

On Tuesday, the US Department of Defense requested $53.6bn for autonomous drones for the 2027 fiscal year, a roughly 24,000 percent increase from last year.

“If the tactics of the conflict shift towards drone warfare and towards a low-intensity conflict, this has lower costs for the attacker but a higher impact for the recipient as we’ve seen in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia,” Michael Kerr, a historian and political scientist at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

Israel, a US ally, has long adopted a strategy of attrition in its longstanding conflicts with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Irreconcilable positions of both sides have resulted in nominal ceasefire agreements that have done little to curb military flare-ups.

Israel has often described its tactic of alternating periods of quiet with occasional large-scale military operations as “mowing the grass”. The US may opt for the same approach with Iran, leaving the region highly unstable and shattering the Gulf states’ aspiration of renewed stability and economic prosperity.

According to Kerr, the risks incurred in using this tactic with a state actor with Iran’s drone and missile capabilities are significantly higher. “If you mow the grass [against Iran], what’s to stop Iran from hitting Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and firing drones at American ships every time that happens,” he said.

Iran, the second-largest country in the Middle East, holds immense strategic significance due to its strategic positioning in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Kerr said the West’s expectation that its regional and global ambitions can be “put back into the box through bombing” is destined to fail.

“The idea that Iran can be bombed to accept Israeli regional hegemony through US bombing – I don’t think it’s ever going to work.”