# Will the US-Iran War Lead to Peace Talks Next?

The whole world is betting on whether the US-Iran conflict can lead to negotiations next. My answer is "yes." Let me briefly explain the reasons below.

**First, let's look at combat capability.** The two carrier strike groups operating in the Middle East are severely limited. The USS Ford suffered a laundry room fire and is now being repaired in Greece, requiring at least several months—and the Ford is America's most advanced carrier. The other Nimitz-class carrier has been in high-intensity combat for 4 weeks and, despite no maintenance, its combat capability has been severely degraded and it's already withdrawn from the combat radius. The newly deployed 11th and 31st Marine Expeditionary Units have only 5,000 personnel—equivalent to a brigade-level force. When America fought Iraq, the coalition had 300,000 troops. Iran has a larger geographic area and is surrounded by mountains. A conservative estimate for a full-scale operation would require 500,000 troops. I'm not even mentioning ammunition stockpiles and the 4 defunct THAAD systems already reported destroyed in the Middle East. The US military just extricated itself from the Afghanistan quagmire and lacks the capacity for a full-scale war. Some say the US military could conduct an island-capture strategy, seizing Hormuz Island to control Iran's export chokepoint. The problem is that such an island is easy to attack but hard to defend—anyone stationed there would face overwhelming firepower. The 5,000 marines wouldn't commit suicide.

**Second, from an economic perspective:** Energy prices are surging, and inflation is a reality. War would delay rate cuts indefinitely. Once trapped in prolonged conflict, the Federal Reserve would consider raising rates instead. This means US Treasury bonds—the most critical component of America's economy—would see prices fall and yields rise. Since Trump took office, he's been desperately pushing for rate cuts specifically to reduce interest payments. America's debt burden is already extremely high. Despite being a quality asset, Trump certainly won't allocate money here, and he hasn't even considered the risks to the stock market. The Afghanistan war cost $2 trillion total. How much would war with Iran cost? The ceiling for the "Big Beautiful" bill is only $5 trillion in new national debt. What would Trump use to fight with?

**Third, Trump's personal track record:** Before becoming president, all 7 of his business ventures took unconventional paths, and 6 ended in bankruptcy. He's someone who loves exploiting loopholes, with constant legal disputes. Simply put, he's a playboy—ask him to court and he's creative, but Iran isn't Venezuela. After a one-night stand, you're left with a sordid reputation, but Iran is like an adhesive plaster—after you're done with it and want to break up, it will fight you to the death. This isn't Trump's art of the deal. Trump's characteristics are obvious: "he loves grandiosity and achievement." Before going to war, he wanted to negotiate. When Israel announced the successful assassination, Trump rushed to declare his involvement. What he thought would be a quick victory became a deadlock. But he did one smart thing: he removed the anti-war Vice President Vance from this situation and instead hangs out with the radical Secretary of State Rubio every day—Venezuela is Rubio's suggestion. Ultimately, I believe it will be Vance who negotiates. This is also something I verified when I saw this information. Trump wants to talk, and Iran actually wants to talk too. Trump's issue is one of face; Iran's is one of substance. Mutual destruction is unbearable for both. Trump would lose the midterm elections, and Iran would either be destroyed or severely damaged.

**Therefore, I'm 85% confident that the final outcome will be peace talks.** What remains is Israel causing disruptions during negotiations. Vance will take the blame for this.