Who shouts first? ... The war between America and Iran, a race against the clock.

Since the outbreak of the war on February 28, Tehran and Washington’s statements reveal a mutual struggle over time rather than a simple winner or loser.

“Since the outbreak of the war on February 28, Tehran and Washington’s statements reveal not so much a side that wants to extinguish the fire and another that insists on lighting it, but a mutual struggle over time itself”

Al-Jazeera Net

Iran emphasizes resilience, open-ended retaliation, and a refusal to accept a ceasefire that would alter deterrence, while the United States emphasizes military pressure and continuing operations until it achieves its goals.

Al-Jazeera Net

Both sides argue that time is not yet exhausted, which delays any truce.

Ali Larijani warned that Iran, unlike America, has prepared for a long war, signaling Tehran wants a lasting stance rather than a quick exit.

He stressed that ending wars is hard, and Iran would not stop pressuring unless others admit mistakes and pay a price.

Tehran maintains that Iran did not start the war and will defend itself, and that the length of the conflict is a tool of deterrence.

Ghalibaf stated that Tehran does not seek to stop fighting and that aggressors must be punished, highlighting that for Tehran the issue is the timing and conditions, not principle.

Stopping now could lock in losses, so any ceasefire should come after American-Israeli strikes have ceased.

American reluctance to mediation.

On the other side, Washington also does not speak with urgency to close the front.

Al-Jazeera Net

The Trump administration rejected, according to Reuters, efforts led by Oman and Egypt to open a path to a ceasefire, and a senior White House official said the president is not interested in that right now and that operations will continue without interruption.

Here it becomes clear that the war is read from the two capitals in opposite ways, even though they converge on the same result: no quick truce.

Iran says time works in its favor because it can turn it into a drain.

America says time still works in its favor because it can continue the pressure.

As U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frankly stated that the United States is winning the war, and that its defenses and those of its allies have ample room, and that it can continue fighting as long as it is necessary.

Yet he also said this would not be an endless war, and the objective is to destroy Iran's missiles and naval capabilities and its security architecture in a surgical, overwhelming and unapologetic manner.

In this sense, Washington wants a war with sufficient scope to achieve its aims, not an open-ended war without a ceiling.

Notably, Trump himself sends mixed signals: he claimed the war was won but insisted the mission must be finished.

On March 14, as fighting spread to facilities and ports in the Gulf, he wrote that many countries would send warships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and that the United States would continue striking the coast with force and targeting Iranian boats and ships.

This language does not come from an administration preparing for an imminent ceasefire, but from an administration seeking to turn military superiority into later political terms.

Division behind the glow of enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, American momentum does not mean that the view in Washington is completely unified.

Marco Rubio justified American entry into the war as a preemptive step because Washington expected that a planned Israeli attack would provoke an Iranian response against American troops, and that failing to act in advance would have meant higher losses.

But Reuters also noted a split within the administration itself, where some officials fear the political cost of rising oil prices, while others push to continue the offensive.

In other words, America, like Iran, does not move solely by battlefield logic but also by internal cost calculations.

This explains Iran's adherence to the logic of a war of attrition.

It understands that conventional power balances do not tilt in its favor, so it does not rely on a direct military victory but on making the American-Israeli attempt to topple the Iranian regime more costly and embarrassing.

The successive waves of missiles and drones, and threats to shipping and energy, are not only tools of strike but tools of exhaustion, bringing wear to defenses, raising insurance and shipping costs, and perplexing neighboring states and markets.

By contrast, Washington believes it must continue the bombing until it reduces this Iranian capability to disrupt to the minimum.

Thus time itself becomes the real theater of war, where Iran wants it as a time for attrition, and America wants it as time to strip away capabilities.

Between the fire of war and the consequences of deterrence failure, the long war is not free for Iran.

“Since the outbreak of the war on February 28, Tehran and Washington’s statements reveal not so much a side that wants to extinguish the fire and another that insists on lighting it, but a mutual struggle over time itself”

Al-Jazeera Net

American and Israeli strikes have not toppled the regime yet, according to U.S. intelligence assessments cited by Reuters, but they have kept the leadership under intense pressure, even though the declared and undeclared goals have not been achieved.

Tehran sees this as a partial victory and is willing to endure losses.

At the same time, continued fighting raises economic and social costs at home and increases energy and policy costs for opponents.

Iran does not choose the long war because it is comfortable, but because it may see a ceasefire that cements deterrence failure as worse.

The United States does not reject stopping the war for attrition alone, but fears that halting now could allow Iran to recover quickly.

In the end, both sides appear to believe time remains on their side, making a quick truce unlikely; Tehran wants conditions and a price for any ceasefire, while Washington seeks to finish its mission before halting, keeping the possibility of future edge in policy discussions.