The prospect of an imminent agreement to end the conflict between the US and Iran again seems unlikely, with the warring sides exchanging strikes and uncompromising rhetoric.

The attacks come days after the US said it was moving into a new phase - a sweeping economic blockade against Iran and countries which trade with it.

The US aim was to force Iran to negotiate and to stop its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The key commercial shipping route has been effectively closed since the US and Israel started the conflict in February.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the two sides signed in June and meant to result in a permanent ceasefire and a deal within 60 days has expired.

As the conflict enters its seventh month, we asked three experts for their thoughts on how it may play out.

Between November 2025 and September 2026, four independent investigations — by Reuters, the Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab, Le Monde and Middle East Eye — documented the use of Ethiopian territory to train, equip and stage forces of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for operations in Blue Nile state. This study assesses that evidence base, assigns confidence levels to its principal claims, identifies what remains unestablished, and sets out the questions that further reporting must answer.

The study makes two original observations not previously stated in the published record. The first concerns a four-day convergence of events in late August 2026. The second concerns a lacuna in the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission report published on 3 September 2026.

"Since mid-July, the US has reimposed its military blockade on Iranian ports and sanctions on Iran’s oil trade. In parallel, the U.S. military has worked tirelessly to clear shipping lanes and help protect commercial ships transiting the Strait. The result has been an effective blockade on Iranian oil shipments, with global shipments recovering and energy prices remaining remarkably stable. Bloomberg reported this week that oil flows through the Strait have recovered to 2/3 of pre-war levels.

That means pressure is now compounding on Iran, and not the US. And if Iran loses its ability to hold the Strait hostage, its leverage dissipates rapidly."

Ukraine’s top diplomat Andrii Sybiha said that Kyiv is hoping for increased momentum in peace talks soon, while Russia’s Putin has also signaled willingness to negotiate, with China being floated as a mediator alongside the U.S. But where is Europe in all this?

"Despite skepticism surrounding some of the Trump administration’s numbers, recent analysis from Goldman Sachs lends support to the broader claim that Persian Gulf oil exports have recovered significantly.

Goldman analysts estimated in late August that exports of crude and petroleum products had risen to about 15 million to 16 million barrels a day, roughly two-thirds of prewar levels and well above the 5 million to 6 million-barrel trough reached in March.

The analysts also estimated that flows through Hormuz itself could be close to U.S. government estimates of 8 million to 10 million barrels a day. A key reason is the growing use of covert tanker crossings and ship-to-ship oil transfers.

CNN documented how Gulf producers and shipping companies have adapted to the conflict by moving tankers through the strait after dark with their AIS transponders switched off, often under U.S. military protection. The tactic allows vessels to become much harder to track publicly while they cross the most dangerous section of the route."

The Dutch central bank (DNB) has confirmed that billions of dollars in gold has been taken out of north America and relocated to London, citing "increasing geopolitical unrest".

DNB said on Wednesday that 86 tonnes of gold had been removed from the US and Canada in a complex operation that took several months. It is now being held by the Bank of England, where the precious metal can be traded more easily "in a crisis situation".

Bank president Olaf Sleijpen said the move was "necessary to strengthen our resilience and preparedness".

The decision comes amid an ongoing trade dispute between the US and Canada, with both countries announcing fresh tariffs on each other after failed trade talks.

[Excerpt from James F. Jeffrey, Philip Solondz Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He served as a Foreign Service officer in seven U.S. administrations. From 2018 to 2020, he was Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.]

Six months in, the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran has settled into a stalemate. Neither Washington nor Tehran can achieve a clear military or diplomatic victory. Instead, the two sides have found themselves locked in a mutual blockade of oil and other shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and into Iranian ports, with no obvious way to change the status quo. The costs of accommodating the other side’s demands to end the stalemate are so high, and the costs of the stalemate sufficiently low, that a mutual blockade has emerged as the least bad option for both the United States and Iran for the foreseeable future.

This situation may not be ideal for Washington, but it avoids both defeat and escalation. It also works to the United States’ advantage over time: as the blockade drags on, Tehran’s position is likely to weaken faster than Washington’s. The United States has its own ample oil supplies to draw from, whereas nearly the entirety of Iran’s oil exports—and therefore much of its hard currency—has been cut off. An ongoing blockade that gradually ratchets up pressure on Iran could make Tehran more flexible in negotiations with the United States, leading to a compromise that Washington could accept. The challenge is to ensure that Tehran does not choose to respond to its worsening position by escalating its attacks and starting another regionwide conflict that ensnares the United States.

Excerpt from essay by Seth G. Jones, President of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of The American Edge: The Military Tech Nexus and the Sources of Great Power Dominance.]

Among its many advantages, the United States benefits from a rare form of geographic luck: it is bracketed on the east and west by two vast moats, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and on the north and south by only two neighbors, both of whom are relatively friendly. Adding to this good fortune is that, since the end of World War II, the United States has possessed a powerful nuclear arsenal and unparalleled military, economic, and technological might. Despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this mix of geography, deterrence, and power has led many Americans to feel almost untouchable at home. According to a 2024 Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, just 19 percent of those surveyed expressed concern about foreign threats.

It is time for Americans to revise their assumptions. In fact, the U.S. homeland has never been as vulnerable to attack as it is today. China, Russia, and North Korea are building up their conventional and nuclear capabilities to strike the United States across a variety of domains—and U.S. defenses have not kept pace. A major evolution in technology and tactics, meanwhile, has increased the threat of subversion and gray-zone attacks: drones from state and nonstate actors can strike almost any target in the United States, and adversaries such as China can conduct AI-enabled offensive cyber-operations that can destroy or damage critical infrastructure.