Wars are not football matches. You cannot judge the final result after the first quarter.
That advice was sound then.
Today, however, we are well beyond the timetable everyone expected.
For months we have heard the same cycle repeated:
America threatens devastating action.
Trump announces Iran wants to negotiate.
Iranian officials deny it.
Deadlines come and go.
Another "historic" breakthrough is announced.
Shipping is attacked again.
More negotiations follow.
If you're feeling exasperated, you're not alone.
Rather than trying to predict what President Trump will do next, perhaps it is worth asking a simpler question.
Where does the conflict actually stand today?
What we know
Although almost every headline contradicts the previous one, several facts appear reasonably clear.
Israel and the United States inflicted severe damage on Iran's military capability during the opening phase of the conflict.
Large numbers of senior military commanders and Revolutionary Guard leaders were eliminated.
Iran's nuclear infrastructure suffered extensive damage.
At the same time, Iran has demonstrated that it remains far from defeated.
It continues to possess significant stocks of missiles and drones and has repeatedly shown it can threaten shipping and neighbouring states.
The Strait of Hormuz remains far from normal. Shipping still moves through the waterway, but at reduced levels amid continuing attacks, warnings and military escorts. Fresh negotiations this week again suggest a possible agreement, but the details remain disputed and neither side appears willing to trust the other.
Meanwhile, America's economic pressure campaign continues.
Sanctions, restrictions on oil exports and naval interdiction have placed enormous strain on Iran's economy.
Inflation remains extremely high, government finances are under pressure and ordinary Iranians continue paying the price.
Yet despite all of this...
There is still no final settlement.
The credibility problem
Perhaps the greatest casualty has been credibility.
President Trump has repeatedly warned Iran that failure to comply would trigger overwhelming military action.
Each deadline has produced another extension.
Each extension has produced another promise that negotiations are progressing.
Immediately afterwards, Iranian officials often deny that meaningful negotiations are even taking place.
Neither side appears particularly interested in matching words with actions.
Iran's own record hardly inspires confidence.
The regime has repeatedly signed agreements before finding ways around them or openly breaching them.
That history makes every new announcement difficult to believe.
So what are Trump's realistic options?
I can see three broad possibilities.
Option 1 — Finish the job
The United States abandons negotiations entirely.
Instead it launches another concentrated military campaign designed to cripple Iran's remaining economic lifelines—particularly its oil export infrastructure.
The objective would not necessarily be occupation.
It would be to make continued resistance economically impossible while encouraging internal opposition to remove the regime.
America would then withdraw while warning Iran that any future attempt to rebuild nuclear weapons would trigger another devastating response.
The upside
The regime might eventually collapse.
Iran's people could finally remove a government many openly despise.
Trump's supporters would argue he finished what previous administrations never had the courage to complete.
The downside
Oil prices would almost certainly surge.
Iran would retaliate against Gulf oil infrastructure.
Regional instability could trigger a global recession.
Even if successful, the economic pain could last many months.
Option 2 — Keep negotiating
This is essentially today's strategy.
Military pressure.
Negotiations.
Threats.
Another deadline.
More negotiations.
Oddly enough, the global economy has adapted better than many expected.
Alternative supply routes are expanding.
Energy markets remain volatile but have avoided complete panic.
Meanwhile Iran's economy continues weakening under sanctions.
If enough internal pressure builds, the regime could eventually collapse without another major American offensive.
For Trump, this offers the possibility of achieving regime change without launching another large war.
The political cost is obvious.
Every delayed deadline chips away at the image of decisive leadership.
Yet if the Iranian regime eventually implodes under economic pressure, history may remember patience rather than impatience.
Option 3 — Walk away
America simply declares victory.
Military operations cease.
Sanctions remain.
The naval pressure remains.
Negotiations stop.
Iran is left to struggle under its own economic weight.
This avoids another war.
But it also creates a dangerous ambiguity.
Iran could continue harassing shipping.
Regional allies might conclude Washington has lost interest.
The regime could portray survival itself as victory.
From Trump's political perspective, this appears the least attractive outcome.
It risks looking like an unfinished war.
The uncomfortable truth
The reality is that nobody—not journalists, not analysts and probably not even those inside the White House—knows how this ends.
The conflict has repeatedly defied confident predictions.
Every time commentators announce that war is imminent, negotiations resume.
Every time a breakthrough appears close, missiles begin flying again.
Perhaps that is the real lesson.
We are no longer watching a conventional military campaign.
We are watching a prolonged contest between military pressure, economic strangulation and political endurance.
The battlefield is no longer only Iran.
It is also the world economy, energy markets, domestic American politics and the patience of everyone following the story.
Eventually something will have to give.
The only question is whether it will be Iran's regime...
...or everybody else's patience.
