Why the Iran War Is Heading Toward a Frozen Conflict Scenario
With a fragile ceasefire currently holding between the United States, Israel, and Iran, and minimal progress in diplomatic talks addressing the core issues of the war, the trajectory of this conflict appears increasingly clear. According to international relations experts, the most probable outcome is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a frozen conflict.
Understanding the Nature of a Frozen Conflict
A frozen conflict is not a static or dormant situation. It represents an unresolved war that persists at a low-intensity level, remaining below the threshold of full-scale military combat. This typically emerges when opposing parties cannot achieve a substantive political settlement. A prime historical example is the fighting in eastern Ukraine from 2014 until Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, which was considered a frozen conflict despite resulting in approximately 14,000 military and civilian casualties and ongoing cyber and information warfare.
Even if negotiations resume this week in Pakistan and some form of agreement is eventually reached, three critical factors strongly indicate this conflict is veering toward a frozen state rather than a lasting peace.
1. Trump's Approach: Ceasefires as Conflict Endpoints
US President Donald Trump's foreign policy methodology reveals a pattern where ceasefires are not treated as pauses to facilitate negotiations on underlying political disputes. Instead, he declares a ceasefire as a victory for the United States and promptly shifts focus to other global matters.
Trump has claimed credit for ending ten wars, including the current hostilities with Iran and Israel's conflict in Lebanon. However, a closer examination shows that in most instances, only a precarious ceasefire has been established while fundamental issues remain unaddressed. This has effectively created frozen conflicts with persistent underlying tensions.
For example, the brief armed conflict last year between India and Pakistan continues to carry a risk of renewed hostilities. Similarly, a durable peace between Thailand and Cambodia following last year's border disputes remains elusive. Yet, Trump has consistently walked away from these conflicts, declaring an end to war as soon as major hostilities cease.
2. The Protracted Nature of Asymmetric Warfare
The current war is fundamentally asymmetric, characterized by a vast disparity in military strength between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. Iran has deliberately employed asymmetric tactics to counter American military dominance, including targeting infrastructure in Persian Gulf nations not involved in the war and periodically closing the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping to disrupt the global economy.
Academic research indicates that asymmetric wars are inherently prolonged and often open-ended. Consequently, they are more likely to conclude in a frozen conflict than in a durable political settlement. The rationale is straightforward: the weaker actor cannot prevail in a conventional military confrontation against the stronger power. Therefore, it seeks to exhaust the more powerful nation through sustained political, economic, and psychological pressure, ultimately forcing a withdrawal and cessation of major hostilities.
This dynamic is currently observable between the US and Iran. Trump is responding to mounting pressures by pursuing a ceasefire while attempting to frame it as an American triumph. Iran, as the weaker party, has agreed to a ceasefire primarily as a survival strategy rather than as a commitment to a permanent resolution. This echoes the Taliban's approach in Afghanistan, where they endured a twenty-year frozen conflict with the US before regaining control of the country following the American withdrawal.
3. Neglect of Core Complex Issues
Neither the United States nor Iran appears genuinely committed to a long-term resolution of the fundamental tensions fueling the conflict. A central issue is Iran's nuclear program. The initial round of peace talks in Pakistan on April 11–12 collapsed because Iran refused to compromise on its nuclear ambitions. Iran has consistently asserted its inalienable right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
The negotiations that produced the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, required twenty months to finalize. Trump withdrew from this pact three years later, denouncing it as a "horrible one-sided deal." Given this contentious history, a swift and definitive resolution to this intricate dispute appears improbable.
Some analysts speculate that the US and Iran might announce a partial agreement, leaving numerous technical details to be resolved later. However, Trump now faces an adversary unlikely to become more accommodating regarding its long-term nuclear rights. Iran has already demonstrated its resolve by establishing a new geostrategic normal, including closing the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global economic flows.
Regional Implications of a Frozen Conflict
The Iran-US war may conclude with a series of ceasefires but is likely to remain a frozen conflict due to these deep-seated tensions. This scenario implies continued threats from both sides concerning Iran's nuclear program and periodic eruptions of violence involving Israel and Iran, the US and Iran, or both.
Historical parallels are instructive. The frozen situation in Gaza exemplifies this dynamic. Last October, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire under Trump's twenty-point peace plan. The initial phase was largely implemented, leading to a hostage-prisoner exchange, reduced Israeli bombardments of Gaza, and resumed aid deliveries. However, there has been no progress on more complex issues such as post-war governance, reconstruction, and crucially, the disarmament of Hamas fighters. Consequently, Israel has refused a complete troop withdrawal, and violence persists.
The frozen conflict on the Korean Peninsula also offers lessons. The war ended with an armistice in 1953 but no peace treaty, technically leaving North and South Korea at war to this day. This led to North Korea developing an underground nuclear weapons program, which continues to pose a global threat.
Similarly, the decades-long frozen conflict between India and Pakistan has triggered an arms race, including nuclear weapons development on both sides, fostered instability in South Asia, and resulted in periodic violent flare-ups.
A frozen conflict among the US, Israel, and Iran would undoubtedly generate comparable long-term instability in the Middle East. This could include a potential regional arms race and more frequent outbreaks of violence, particularly concerning control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
This analysis is based on insights from international relations scholars Jessica Genauer, Academic Director at the Public Policy Institute of UNSW Sydney, and Benedict Moleta, a PhD student in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University.
