Iran and the US: messages about a quick end to the war do not calm the Middle East’s greatest uncertainty
Messages from Washington that the war with Iran could end “very quickly” lowered oil prices after their previous sharp rise, but they did not remove the fundamental uncertainty that today defines the global political and economic scene. The biggest story on March 10, 2026, is not only whether the conflict between Iran, the United States, and their regional partners will stop, but under what conditions, with what political outcome, and with what security mechanisms for the wider Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. Markets reacted to the signal of possible calming, but diplomacy still does not give the impression of a stable or linear process. In such circumstances, every statement about the “imminent end” of the conflict has a double effect: in the short term, it calms financial markets, while politically it opens additional questions about what the end of the war actually means and who can credibly guarantee it.
Between military operation and political message
According to available information from American and international sources, the current phase of the war has lasted since February 28, when the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, after which an Iranian response followed against multiple targets in the region. The White House describes the action as Operation “Epic Fury”, claiming that the goal was to remove the immediate nuclear and missile threat, weaken Iran’s naval capacities and strike networks, and create a new balance of power on the ground. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio further emphasized that the operational focus is directed at Iranian short-range ballistic missiles and threats to the U.S. Navy and other military targets in the region. Such wording is important because it shows that Washington is officially trying to maintain the framework of a “limited” military operation, although developments on the ground and the breadth of Iranian responses indicate a much more complex and broader security conflict.
The problem for the American administration is that the political message about a quick end to the war comes after earlier announcements that operations could last for weeks, or even longer if it is assessed that Iran still has the capacity to continue attacks. This is precisely why markets listen to statements from Washington with great caution. One sentence about the possible imminent end of the conflict is enough to lower the price of oil, but it is not enough to remove fears of a new strike on energy, transport, or military points in the region. In other words, markets reacted to the tone, not to a confirmed political agreement.
Why the question of ending the war is far more complex than simply announcing a ceasefire
In diplomatic terms, it is not decisive only whether the shooting will lessen or stop, but what the political text of a possible agreement will be and who will supervise its implementation. Iran, according to Associated Press reports, signaled that it wants the war to end, but not a merely formal ceasefire without clear political content. This is an important nuance because it shows that in Tehran the question of ending the fighting is not separated from the broader question of the future security order, international pressure, and the conditions under which Iran would agree to limit or redefine part of its military and nuclear capacities. On the other hand, messages coming from Washington and Israel speak not only about neutralizing the immediate threat, but also about the much broader goal of long-term weakening of the Iranian regime and its regional allies.
This is precisely where the key point of uncertainty arises. If one side speaks of a quick end to the war, and the other of a political outcome that must change the balance of power in the region, then it is obvious that the end of the conflict does not mean the same thing for all actors. For the United States, this may mean stopping Iranian strikes and reducing the risk to American bases and allies. For Israel, this may mean a much more lasting reduction of Iranian military capabilities. For Iran, this may mean an attempt at regime survival while preserving at least part of its strategic deterrence. For the Gulf monarchies, which stand between their alliance with the U.S. and their own exposure to Iranian responses, the end of the war means above all a return to predictability and protection of key infrastructure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the test of real stability
If there is one place where it can be seen how fragile political messages about the “imminent end” of the conflict are, it is the Strait of Hormuz. According to official data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency, around 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products pass daily through that narrow maritime corridor, that is, approximately one-fifth of global consumption of liquid fuels and roughly one-quarter of global seaborne oil trade. In other words, any more serious disruption at that point does not remain a regional story, but turns into a global macroeconomic problem.
That is why the fall in oil prices after American messages about a possible quick end to the war was an important signal, but not proof of real stabilization. Associated Press and other media report that the price of crude oil first rose sharply during the conflict, at one point approaching the level of 120 dollars per barrel, and then retreated when messages arrived from Washington suggesting that the war might not turn into a prolonged war of attrition. But the very fact that the market reacted so nervously to one political message shows how sensitive the entire system is to rhetoric, let alone to real military moves. As long as there is no credible arrangement guaranteeing security of navigation, protection of energy infrastructure, and restraint from new strikes, every decrease in prices may prove to be only a short respite.
The United Nations warns of the spread of the crisis
At the emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, held after the start of the attacks, Secretary-General António Guterres warned that American and Israeli strikes, as well as the subsequent Iranian counterattacks, pose a danger to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of several states in the region. Such an assessment is important for at least two reasons. First, it shows that the crisis is not viewed only through the relationship between Washington and Tehran, but as a regional threat that can affect neighboring countries, maritime routes, civil aviation, and supply chains. Second, it confirms that international institutions still do not see a clear, stable, and agreed diplomatic way out.
In political terms, the UN warning further relativizes optimistic messages about a quick end to the war. Conflicts of this kind rarely end with a simple political announcement, especially when several actors have their own military, security, and domestic political calculations. If the region has already entered a phase in which attacks and counterattacks are spilling across the borders of directly involved states, then the question of controlling escalation is more important than the rhetoric about ending it.
Diplomacy exists, but it still does not act like a firm process
In the background of the military escalation, diplomatic channels still exist, including Oman’s mediation efforts and pressure from several Middle Eastern states to limit the conflict. However, there are currently not enough publicly confirmed elements indicating a firm and linear negotiating process with clear deadlines, guarantors, and implementation mechanisms. This is the reason why political analysts and energy markets cautiously receive every formulation about a “very quick” end to the war. Such messages may be part of negotiating pressure, a message to the domestic public, a signal to allies, or an attempt to temporarily calm the markets. But without an implementation architecture, they do not mean lasting de-escalation.
An additional problem is that even before the current strikes, there had been attempts to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and the broader security framework, but without a final solution. The war has further burdened those channels. That is why today negotiations are not only about a ceasefire, but also about whether it will even be possible to return to any sustainable diplomatic format. In practice, this means that every future announcement about the end of the war is worth only as much as the concrete verification mechanisms, regional mediators, and the willingness of the main actors to renounce part of their maximalist goals behind it.
What the US wants, and what Iran wants
The American position can currently be read on two levels. At the official level, Washington speaks about removing the threat, defending allies, and protecting American forces. At the political level, the rhetoric from the White House and from part of the American political establishment goes one step further, toward the idea of strategically weakening the Iranian regime. That difference is not insignificant. A limited operation has a different exit logic than an operation that is supposed to produce a deeper change in regime behavior or in the internal order.
Iran, on the other hand, seeks to show that it still has the capacity to respond and that it is not ready to accept an outcome that would look like unilateral capitulation. According to available reports, Iranian strikes and threats connected to regional infrastructure still serve as an instrument of political and military pressure. This means that Tehran, even in the event of a reduction in the intensity of the conflict, probably wants to preserve the capability of deterrence and the negotiating value of its remaining resources. That is precisely why the claim that the war could end very quickly does not in itself answer the question of what Iran needs to get in return, or what it would have to lose.
Markets hear the messages, but calculate the risk
The reaction of the oil and stock markets in recent days shows that investors and traders distinguish between the current tone and the real outcome. When the market assessed that there was a danger of a longer blockade, new strikes on Gulf infrastructure, or a more serious disruption of navigation, energy prices rose sharply. When a signal arrived from Washington that the war could end soon, part of that growth quickly melted away. But even after such a fall, one clear conclusion remained: the geopolitical risk premium has not disappeared, it has only temporarily decreased.
That is important for Europe as well. Although European states are not direct participants in the war, any longer persistence of high energy prices would place an additional burden on an already sensitive economic recovery, transport costs, inflation expectations, and industrial production. In that sense, the war around Iran is no longer only a topic of foreign policy or security, but also a question of living standards, monetary policy, and the stability of supply chains. That is why financial markets reacted so quickly: not because they believe the danger has passed, but because they are trying every day to estimate how long it could last.
The most important question now is the conditions of peace, not only the date of its declaration
The central political fact on March 10 is not the claim itself that the war could end soon, but the fact that there is still no clear answer to the question under what conditions such an ending would be possible. Will there be security guarantees for navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Will regional states receive firmer guarantees for the protection of their energy and civilian infrastructure. Will any negotiating framework on Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities be restored. And perhaps most importantly, will the end of the fighting mean only a temporary respite or the beginning of a different order in which the risk of a new escalation will indeed be lower.
As long as these questions remain open, messages about the “very quick” end of the war may appear politically useful and market-calming, but they still do not constitute proof that the crisis is under control. The current picture speaks of a conflict that may be approaching some kind of breaking point, but not of a neatly negotiated exit. That is why the global political story of the day is not only whether the guns will fall silent, but whether behind that lull there will remain an agreement strong enough not to return the region to the same brink within just a few weeks.
Sources:- Associated Press – overview of the key unknowns of the war, the duration of the conflict, and market reaction (link)- The White House – official presentation of the American operation “Epic Fury” and Washington’s goals (link)- U.S. Department of State – joint statement on Iranian missile and drone attacks in the region (link)- United Nations – summary of the emergency Security Council session and the Secretary-General’s warning about regional escalation (link)- U.S. Energy Information Administration – official data on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for world oil supply (link)- International Energy Agency – overview of the role of the Strait of Hormuz in global trade in oil and petroleum products (link)
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 2 hours ago