In recent weeks, rising diplomatic tensions have emerged between the US and Iran. The two nations seem closer than ever to outright military conflict. Several authors have speculated on the implications of the rising US-Iran tensions. 

The two nations have been demonstrating the willingness to engage militarily, with senior political figures in Iran rejecting the proposed terms of the US to de-escalate the situation. As Amir Azimi has found, ‘From the perspective of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, accepting such terms could appear more dangerous than risking a limited war with the United States under President Donald Trump. A military confrontation, however costly, may be seen as survivable. Total strategic rollback may not. Yet the risks embedded in this calculation are profound, and not only for Iran. Any US campaign could target senior leadership in its opening phase. If Khamenei is killed, it would not only end a more-than three-decade rule but could destabilise succession at a moment of vulnerability. Strikes on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other security institutions could also weaken the apparatus that recently reasserted control after one of the deadliest and violent crackdowns in the Islamic Republic's history … Washington's risks are no less real. On paper, the US military has the capacity to fulfil the commander-in-chief's objectives if tensions escalate. But wars are not fought on paper. They are shaped by miscalculation, escalation and unintended consequences. The recent 12-day war with Israel exposed vulnerabilities in Iran's command structure and military infrastructure. It also offered lessons in adaptation, how to absorb strikes, recalibrate and respond under pressure. A broader confrontation could produce outcomes neither side intends. A weakened central authority in Tehran would not automatically translate into stability or alignment with Western interests. Power vacuums can generate new, fragmented or radicalised centres of influence, complicating the regional balance in ways that are undesirable for Washington and its allies. Ayatollah Khamenei now faces few favourable options. Accepting Washington's conditions risks hollowing out the regime's deterrent strategy. Rejecting them increases the likelihood of confrontation at a time of internal fragility. Between what he may see as the "worst" option; strategic surrender, and the "best of the worst", a limited but containable war, Tehran appears, at least publicly, to be leaning toward the latter.’ (BBC.2026) As the author has argued, for Ali Khamenei, accepting U.S. conditions may seem more threatening to regime survival than risking a limited military confrontation, even though war carries serious dangers. A conflict could destabilise Iran internally, especially if senior leadership or security institutions are targeted. This also risks creating unpredictable escalation risks for Washington. With few favourable options, Tehran appears to view a controlled conflict as preferable to what it sees as strategic surrender, despite the high potential for unintended and destabilising consequences.

US President Donald Trump has been ramping up pressure on the Iran regime to agree terms, setting a 10 day deadline. As Bernd Debusmann Jr notes, ‘US President Donald Trump says the world will find out "over the next, probably, 10 days" whether the US will reach a deal with Iran or take military action. At the first meeting of his Board of Peace in Washington DC, Trump said of negotiations with the Islamic Republic about its nuclear programme: "We have to make a meaningful deal otherwise bad things happen." In recent days, the US has surged military forces to the Middle East, while progress was reported at talks between American and Iranian negotiators in Switzerland. The Iranian government has told the UN Secretary-General that it will regard US bases in the region as legitimate targets if used in any military aggression against Iran. Tehran's UN mission said in a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres that Trump's rhetoric signalled a real risk of an attack - but it said Iran did not want a war. Democratic lawmakers, and some Republicans, have voiced opposition to any potential military action in Iran without congressional approval. In his remarks, Trump noted that Special Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who is also Trump's son-in-law, had "some very good meetings" with Iran. "It's proven to be, over the years, not easy to make a meaningful deal with Iran," he said. "Otherwise bad things happen." Trump's foreign policy dilemma laid bare by Iran tensions Published 9 hours ago One day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned that Iran would be "very wise" to make a deal with the US, adding that Trump was still hoping for a diplomatic solution over Tehran's nuclear programme. When Trump first announced the Board of Peace, it was thought to be aimed at helping end the two-year war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and oversee reconstruction. But in the last month its mission has appeared to go beyond one conflict, with many wondering if the Trump-chaired board, made up of about two dozen countries, is meant to sideline the United Nations. US missile and aircraft struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in June last year, and the White House was reportedly discussing new attack options this week. American forces have been ramping up their presence in the region in recent weeks, including the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. However, the BBC understands that the British government has not given permission for the US to use UK military bases to support any potential strikes on Iran. In previous military operations in the Middle East, the US used RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire, and the UK overseas territory of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. Satellite images have also shown that Iran has reinforced military facilities, and the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, has posted messages to social media threatening US forces. "The US President constantly says that the US has sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware," one of Khamenei's posts read. "However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea."’ (BBC.2026) As Debussman Jr conveys, the outcome of President Trump’s 10 day deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran will determine whether the US moves toward military action in Tehran. While negotiations have shown some progress, the US has increased its military presence in the Middle East, and Iran has warned it would target US bases if attacked, even as it insists it does not seek war. Political opposition within the US, uncertainty over allied support, and escalating rhetoric from both sides underscore the high stakes and volatility surrounding the current standoff.

The current trajectory of US-Iran relations reflects a narrowing diplomatic space and an increasing reliance on coercive signalling. Both leaderships appear to calculate that limited escalation strengthens their strategic positions, however, unless meaningful diplomatic breakthroughs are achieved, the coming weeks may prove decisive not only for bilateral relations, but for broader regional stability in the Middle East.