Seoul: One month into the U.S.-Israel war with Iran, what began as a swift, high-tech campaign has hardened into a dangerous stalemate with global consequences. The most decisive battlefield is no longer in the skies over Iran or in covert operations on the ground, but in the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply normally flows. Today, that artery is constricted and the global economy is feeling the shock.

According to Yonhap News Agency, following joint U.S. and Israeli strikes in late February, Iran responded asymmetrically, leveraging its geographic advantage to disrupt maritime traffic. Tanker movements stopped, shipping firms halted operations, and oil prices surged past $120 per barrel at their peak. The consequences have been immediate and far-reaching: inflationary pressures are mounting globally, supply chains are tightening and energy-importing economies, especially in Asia, are under acute strain.

Yet the deeper failure is strategic. Washington's early confidence that precision strikes could quickly neutralize Tehran's leadership and force capitulation has proven to be misplaced. Instead, Iran has demonstrated resilience and an ability to escalate horizontally, drawing in regional actors and threatening broader instability. Recent reports of expanded hostilities, including attacks by Iran-backed groups, underscore the risk of a widening conflict that neither side can fully control.

At the same time, diplomatic efforts remain stalled. Tehran has insisted on sweeping preconditions, including security guarantees and an end to airstrikes, while Washington has shown reluctance to engage with terms that could be perceived as concessionary. The result is a familiar but dangerous impasse: maximalist demands on both sides, with little political space for compromise.

For the United States and Israel, the costs of prolonging the war are rising. Military escalation risks drawing American forces deeper into a regional quagmire, as evidenced by recent troop deployments and contingency planning for potential ground operations. Meanwhile, the global economic fallout - higher energy prices, market volatility and strained alliances - undermines broader strategic priorities. Even close partners have shown reluctance to support military efforts in the Gulf, signaling limits to coalition cohesion.

Iran, for its part, faces its own constraints. While the blockade of Hormuz has proven an effective lever, it is also a double-edged sword. Prolonged disruption risks alienating key economic partners and invites sustained military retaliation. Moreover, the longer the conflict drags on, the greater the danger of miscalculation, particularly as multiple actors operate in an increasingly crowded and volatile battlespace.

Neither side is winning in any meaningful strategic sense. What is unfolding is not decisive victory, but mutual attrition. The way forward lies in a calibrated, face-saving compromise. For Washington and its allies, this means recognizing that absolute military objectives -- such as total dismantling of Iran's nuclear capabilities -- are unlikely to be achieved without unacceptable costs. A phased de-escalation, potentially tied to maritime security guarantees and limited sanctions relief, would represent a pragmatic shift.

For Tehran, it requires acknowledging that maximalist demands, such as sweeping reparations or permanent control over international waterways, are unlikely to gain international acceptance. A willingness to restore freedom of navigation, even under monitored conditions, would signal constructive intent and open the door to broader negotiations.

Critically, both sides must meet halfway. A ceasefire framework that includes mutual de-escalation steps -- cessation of strikes, partial reopening of the strait and third-party monitoring -- could provide the foundation for a more durable settlement. Recent mediation efforts, including limited agreements allowing restricted passage through Hormuz, suggest that incremental progress is possible.

The alternative is grim. A prolonged conflict risks entrenching a cycle of retaliation, expanding the war across the Middle East and deepening the global economic shock. The longer the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint, the greater the likelihood that this crisis will evolve into a systemic disruption of the international order.

History offers a clear lesson: wars that begin with overconfidence often end through compromise. The question is not whether Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran will eventually negotiate -- but how much more instability the world must endure before they do.