With the ceasefire in Iran extended, there are many questions about the future of the conflict in the Middle East. Ongoing negotiations have caused changes to military and political strategy and created economic effects across the globe.
On April 21, 2026, the UW Now Live hosted experts John Hall, Dana Peterson MS’02, and Nadav Shelef to discuss the complexities and consequences of the war in Iran. Mike Knetter, an economist and former CEO of the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association, moderated the discussion.
Hall, a military history professor at the UW, began the evening’s conversation by discussing the extension of the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, which he said reflects the Trump administration’s understanding that a negotiated settlement is the best way to navigate the conflict. He pointed out that the extension also suggests a struggle within the Iranian regime and differing ideas about how the country’s leadership should work with the United States.
“The problem now is that the United States has discovered what military historians have known for a very long time — that is, air power alone cannot win a war such as this,” Hall said. “When the president recently threatened civilizational destruction, the targeting of civilian infrastructure like bridges and power grids, that reflects, to some extent, how far this administration is willing to go, but it also reflects the extent to which the U.S. is running out of other military targets. It has no option but to escalate to these.”
Hall said negotiations between the U.S., Israel, and Iran are a problem for the Trump administration, pointing out that while the president understands that negotiations are the best way out of the conflict in the Middle East, the administration’s “winner takes all” approach to deal-making complicates the negotiation process.
“What is, unfortunately, most likely is a lose-lose-lose situation. Any deal that is going to be mutually agreeable to Iran, Israel, and the United States is going to be a deal where all three parties are unhappy,” Hall said. “Although we have granted an extension to the ceasefire, I don’t think that we are anywhere near close to the point where this administration will accede to that kind of arrangement.”
The discussion then shifted as Shelef, a political science professor at the UW, discussed the ways Israel is involved in the ongoing conflict and the effects of the war on that country.
“If there’s one thing I want everyone to take away from this, it’s that the United States and Israel achieved a lot from their perspective in this conflict with Iran so far,” he said. “But the longer-term impact and whether or not they really achieve their aims in the war really depends on whether or not regime change actually takes place.”
Shelef said there is no sign that regime change in Iran is likely to happen, and while the attacks on the country’s nuclear systems were somewhat successful, the long-term effects of the attacks are uncertain. If Iran were to pursue nuclear weapons, it would be destabilizing for the region and undermine American and Israeli policy. Shelef said Israel has established a presence in Lebanon to create a barrier against missile threat from Hezbollah, and the Lebanese government may be willing to reach an agreement with Israel if a regime change does occur in Iran.
Peterson then highlighted the economic effects of the war, emphasizing the importance of the Strait of Hormuz for trade. Iran’s closure of the strait has contributed to price increases throughout the supply chain, some immediate and some indirect.
“You could have the effect of the inflation flowing through supply chains and ultimately to your wallet through the end of the year,” Peterson said. “We’re going to see flow-throughs of inflation down supply chains, starting with the commodities, but ultimately ending up at the retail store.”
The guests then answered viewer questions and discussed military action in the Middle East, long-term solutions to conflict, and stability in the region.
