Despite the heightened military activity, former diplomat Ashok Sajjanhar and former Foreign Secretary Shashank believe the current confrontation is unlikely to spiral into an all-out war. They argue that both countries are seeking to project military strength while avoiding a conflict that could prove costly for both sides.
Why do experts believe an all-out war is unlikely?According to Sajjanhar, both Washington and Tehran have strong incentives to prevent the situation from escalating beyond limited military exchanges.
“As far as the attacks are concerned, accidental escalation could take place,” Sajjanhar said. “But I think both sides will be very keen to ensure that the situation does not get out of hand… and that it does not descend into an all-out conflict or war.”
He believes both countries understand the economic, political and military costs of a prolonged regional conflict. While targeted strikes may continue, neither side appears willing to trigger a sustained war.
Shashank offered a similar assessment, describing the current phase as one of calibrated military pressure rather than preparations for a full-scale conflict.
“I think the confrontation continues, but it is not a full-scale war,” he said. “There are limits because the MOU… still exists.”
Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important?
A key reason the latest confrontation has attracted global attention is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints.
Roughly a fifth of the world’s seaborne crude oil trade passes through the narrow waterway, making any disruption a potential risk for global energy markets. Countries such as India, China, Japan and South Korea rely heavily on oil shipments that transit the Strait.
According to Sajjanhar, Iran’s recent actions suggest it is attempting to assert greater control over shipping through the waterway. However, he argued that the Strait is part of the global commons under international law and that freedom of navigation must be protected.
He said the United States viewed attacks on commercial vessels as crossing an important line, prompting military action to reinforce the principle of unrestricted maritime navigation.
The disruption is already affecting shipping. According to shipping analytics firm Kpler, only six tankers passed through the Strait during the latest tracking period, the lowest level in five weeks, reflecting growing caution among ship operators.
Is military pressure replacing diplomacy?
The experts do not believe diplomacy has disappeared altogether. Instead, they argue military action is being used to improve each country’s negotiating position.
According to Shashank, Washington wants any future agreement with Tehran to be negotiated from a position of strength. At the same time, Iran is demonstrating that it can impose costs on the United States and its allies without provoking a full-scale war.
In their view, both countries are attempting to build leverage for future negotiations rather than secure a decisive military victory.
Why does the interim MOU matter?
Both experts pointed to the interim memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the two sides as an important reason the conflict is likely to remain contained.
Although military exchanges have continued, neither Washington nor Tehran has formally abandoned the framework that keeps diplomatic engagement alive.
Sajjanhar argued that the current arrangement largely benefits Iran, giving Tehran little incentive to walk away from it.
“The whole world has seen that this 14-point MOU is heavily weighted in favour of Iran,” he said. “Iran will not cross the red line by tearing up the MOU because it has gained too much from it.”
Shashank similarly noted that the agreement continues to impose practical limits on how far either side is willing to escalate, even as military strikes continue.
Why doesn’t the US want another prolonged war?
According to Sajjanhar, Washington has also learnt from earlier rounds of confrontation with Iran.
He argued that despite its military superiority, the United States found it difficult to fully achieve its strategic objectives through direct military action.
“The United States has realised that it cannot achieve its objectives through a full-fledged war against Iran,” Sajjanhar said.
Instead, he believes Washington is likely to rely on a combination of military deterrence, economic pressure and diplomacy rather than become drawn into another open-ended regional conflict.
What does this mean for India and global markets?
For India, the immediate concern remains the security of energy supplies and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Any prolonged disruption could increase crude oil prices, raise freight and insurance costs, and add to imported inflation.
Global markets are also likely to remain sensitive to developments in the region. Oil prices, shipping rates and investor sentiment could continue to fluctuate as long as military exchanges persist.
However, if the experts’ assessment proves correct, the volatility may be driven by periodic military strikes and geopolitical uncertainty rather than the sustained disruption associated with a full-scale regional war.
For now, Sajjanhar and Shashank believe both the United States and Iran are trying to strike a careful balance between military signalling and strategic restraint. While tensions are likely to remain elevated, they argue that neither side appears willing to cross the threshold into an all-out conflict, recognising that the economic and geopolitical costs would far outweigh any potential gains.
