If U.S. President Donald Trump ends the war with Iran without securing a deal, analysts warn it could leave Tehran with greater leverage over Middle East energy routes, whilst Gulf Arab oil and gas producers bear the consequences of a conflict they neither initiated nor controlled.
Rather than weakening Iran’s leadership, such an outcome could embolden it. Surviving weeks of U.S.-Israeli attacks, launching strikes on Gulf states, and disrupting global energy markets—particularly through actions affecting the Strait of Hormuz—could strengthen Tehran’s position.
Trump has indicated the conflict could conclude quickly, even without an agreement, whilst also warning of intensified strikes if Iran does not meet U.S. demands. However, for Gulf nations, a premature end without clear guarantees raises concerns about being left exposed to the aftermath of a conflict that may ultimately favour Iran.
Analysts highlight that ending hostilities without a decisive resolution risks allowing Iran to maintain pressure on the region. With U.S. forces still stationed in Gulf bases, Tehran could continue to pose threats, particularly to shipping lanes and energy flows.
This imbalance fuels regional anxiety that Iran could emerge from the war relatively unscathed yet more influential, capable of leveraging strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz to impact global markets. Its ability to disrupt energy supplies has already demonstrated the broader economic implications of the conflict.
These dynamics also explain why Gulf states have largely avoided direct involvement, prioritising efforts to prevent escalation into a wider sectarian conflict that could reshape the region for decades.
Observers also point to a miscalculation by the U.S. and Israel in underestimating Iran’s resilience. Attempts to weaken its leadership structure appear to have reinforced internal unity, strengthening hardline elements and deepening a narrative of resistance.
Instead of fracturing, Iran’s political and military systems—supported by layered institutions and parallel power structures—have shown durability, leading to a more defiant stance rather than capitulation.
Iran’s strategy has focused less on conventional battlefield success and more on imposing economic costs. By targeting energy infrastructure and threatening key transit routes, it has driven up oil prices and increased global inflationary pressures.
Analysts say this approach is designed to make the conflict economically unsustainable for its adversaries, where endurance itself becomes a form of victory.
An early U.S. withdrawal without firm safeguards could leave Gulf states vulnerable, with the risk that Iran may extend its response beyond the region using long-established global networks.
Ultimately, even if the U.S. scales back its involvement, Iran may not perceive the outcome as a defeat. Instead, its leadership could emerge intact and potentially more assertive, with the regional balance of power largely unchanged but the risks heightened.
Click here for more on World News
