In “Alice in Wonderland”, the King of Hearts says gravely, “Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop.”

If US President Donald Trump had followed this advice, he would not have paused the hostilities against Iran when he did. His penchant for making quick deals got in the way, and he thought the Iranians would be keen to strike a deal after taking two weeks of heavy pounding.

Yet, the pounding was well begun but only half done when Trump called a pause. Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of Centcom, had reportedly needed 14 more days to finish the list of targets given to him for Operation Epic Fury. If the admiral had not been stopped in his tracks midway, maybe Iran would have been keener on a deal than it is now.

It may be argued that the ceasefire is in name only, and both parties have continued to fight by other means, namely dueling blockades in the Strait of Hormuz. The twin blockades have involved firing and damage to cargo ships and have almost stalled diplomacy.

The Iranians had refused to come to Islamabad for the latest scheduled round of talks, and Pakistan had to beg Trump for an extension of the ceasefire. True to contradictory form, Trump has labeled the ceasefire as “indefinite” while simultaneously threatening to resume hostilities.

It is clear by now that there is hardly any meeting ground left between the warring parties. Iranians have recognized the leverage and income potential of blocking the Strait of Hormuz and are unlikely to back down on their demand for its control unless they feel genuinely squeezed.

This is one demand on which Trump, too, has taken a hard line, vowing to make the passage free for all nations. Thus, while the other sticky issues of Iran’s undeclared nuclear ambitions and the control of its enriched uranium stockpile may still be negotiable, the Strait has become the Gordian Knot that only a decisive war can undo.

The blockades have had predictably devastating effects, not only on the world but on Iran too. The only party gaining from the blockades is the US itself. As a major oil supplier, the cessation of traffic in the strait has opened up market opportunities not only for American oil but also for Venezuela’s, now controlled for all intents and purposes by the US.

Iran, unable to export its fuel production, must resort to storage, the balance of which was, in mid-April, limited to two weeks of production. That period is about to end, and then the wells have to be shut off, which may cause long-term damage to the infrastructure.

But oil was the means of running Iran; part of the earnings went towards importing petrol and diesel because of Iran’s limited refining capacity. With neither the money nor the sea lanes available for such imports, the nation will soon face the same dilemma as Cuba, a much smaller nation.

But Cuba is not at war, and its people have been used to suffering hardship for more than half a century. Iran was a country in turmoil at the beginning of the war, sparked by severe economic hardship.

A majority of Iranians are being kept in check by brute force, but not being able to get electricity because of a lack of imported diesel and not being able to buy fuel for their personal vehicles could be the proverbial last straw.

Half of the earnings of the Iranian regime from the export of oil are controlled by the politically powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They use it for their salaries and equipment as well as for funding, through the Quds Force, proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia Militias and the Houthis.

A question can be asked validly – if Trump’s blockade is so detrimental to Iran, why should he not continue it indefinitely without giving a free hand to Admiral Cooper to finish the rest of the targets in his list? The answer is simple: the suffering will be for the Iranians, not for the theocracy, or for IRGC or the Basij.

Every penny of the state will continue to be used for making missiles and drones, for repairing uranium-enrichment facilities, and for maintaining fighting men and machines. Nothing will be left for the people who will soon be without fuel, electricity, food and even water.

These unarmed sufferers cannot overcome the heavily armed state on their own. It would be naive to think that a weakening of Iran is the same as weakening the state’s apparatus.

The Pol Pot regime of Cambodia survived for four years in spite of a vast majority of Cambodians becoming victims of that killer regime; only an invasion by Vietnam made it fall. The same can be said of North Korea and Cuba, where, oppressed over a much longer timeline, people seem to have lost even hope.

If they are ever revived as humans, it will be only with external intervention. An invasion of Iran seems to be out of the question. But only a much more severe weakening of the regime may make it collapse under its own weight, as the Soviet Union did. A sustained US blockade, coupled with the destruction of the security apparatus, may bring about such conditions.

The US and Israel have to finish the task they started – of making the regime implode. Leaving the task unfinished and compromising with its authoritarian theocrats will have many other consequences beyond the suffering of Iranians. Iran will be a bigger bully for its neighbors and for the world at large.

The US and Israel may not be so dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, but they shall continue to remain in Iran’s slogans, “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Both these countries know that these are not empty slogans or wishful thinking; these are strategic goals.

If Iran’s regime survives the present crunch, a second round after a couple of years may be disastrous for the US and Israel, as even without nukes, Iran has declared its intentions of hurting them as well as Europe.

Leaving the Iranian regime in place will result in another strategic loss. By attacking its mainly Sunni neighbors, Iran has created a fissure with them wider than the Persian Gulf. This is a net advantage for the West in general and for Israel in particular, which can hope for a thaw with the likes of Saudi Arabia that will be more stable than the one expected from the Abraham Accords.

The US is already facing difficulties in Iraq in dealing with Iran’s proxy Shia militias; If the theocracy survives, they will be unmanageable, as may be the Houthis. All the achievements of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah will come to naught if the Quds Force is able to inject fresh life into these religious zealots.

Russia, down in the Middle East after the fall of Assad in Syria, will be reinvigorated, and China, now an open supporter of Iran’s regime, will gain economically and geopolitically.

The US and Israel leaving the task half-done and allowing the Iranian regime to survive will mark a huge loss for the US, the West and the global order in more ways than may be readily apparent.