How and when the US-Israeli war with Iran will end remains highly uncertain, and the really worrisome thing is that there exists a significant chance the conflict will further escalate, inflicting severe and prolonged damage on Asian economies.

The conflict’s trajectory hinges on a fundamental disconnect between Washington’s desire for a quick victory and Tehran’s strategy of turning the war into a grinding war of attrition.

There is no consensus among Mideast experts and seasoned observers on how long this war will last, with public statements by key players revealing conflicting expectations. US President Donald Trump has suggested the war could end “soon,” claiming there is “practically nothing left to target” in Iran. He had initially framed the campaign as a six-week operation.

This optimistic timeline, however, is not shared by all. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said the operation will continue “without any time limit” until all objectives are achieved. Compounding this, Israeli government ministers have reportedly been briefed that toppling the Iranian regime, a stated goal, could take up to a year.

This divergence points to a potential rift in the US-Israeli coalition even as Iran bets on its endurance. By leveraging its large stockpile of cheap drones and missiles to disrupt vital energy routes through the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran aims to inflict enough economic pain on global markets to force Washington to blink first.

The current situation is extremely volatile, and the potential for further escalation is high.

While the US and Israel are aligned in the immediate conflict, they may have different long-term objectives, particularly with regard to Iran’s nuclear program and the future of its government. This could lead to one party taking actions that will draw the other deeper into the conflict.

For Iran’s leadership, this is an “all-out” existential fight. Faced with the potential collapse of the regime, the remaining leadership may seek to exact huge costs on the US and its allies by prolonging the conflict and maximizing the global disruption, betting that political pressure on Washington will force a US retreat before Iran is completely defeated. Is that even likely, one wonders.

The current situation is highly unpredictable. A single miscalculation, a strike on a critical piece of infrastructure, or an incident that would draw in another regional power could rapidly expand the scope of the conflict.

Regardless of how long the war lasts, its effects on Asia are already profound and will likely worsen with further escalation. The primary impact is economic, stemming from the region’s heavy dependence on Middle East oil.

At this point in time, the conflict has virtually paralyzed the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost 90 percent of Gulf oil exports to Asia pass. This has sent oil prices surging past $100 a barrel. For heavily dependent economies like Japan and South Korea, which get about 50 percent of their energy imports from the Middle East, this creates an immediate crunch, leaving them scrambling to release strategic reserves, cap fuel prices, and secure alternative supplies.

The shock threatens to reignite inflation and stall economic growth, reviving the specter of 1970s-style stagflation across the continent.

The pain extends beyond energy prices. Businesses across Southeast Asia will face shipment delays, surging freight and insurance costs, and higher prices for raw materials.

The IMF has warned that a prolonged conflict will negatively impact market sentiment, growth, and inflation, placing new demands on policymakers across Asia. Countries with thin financial buffers, like Pakistan, and major energy importers like India and the Philippines, are considered among those most at risk.

In response to these threats, the Asia-Pacific region has united in calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities. ASEAN foreign ministers have issued a unanimous statement urging all parties to respect international law and resolve their differences through diplomacy. China has also emerged as a key voice for de-escalation, urging a return to dialogue.