So here we are, 27 days into a war that started on February 28, 2026. The global economy is feeling it: oil prices have surged past $100 a barrel, and gold—the classic safe-haven asset—just had its worst weekly drop since 1983. With U.S. midterm elections on the horizon, the political pressure to find an exit is mounting by the day. The big question on everyone's mind is simple: when does this end?

We asked a range of experts for their take on the timeline. Here’s what they said.

Gav Blaxberg, CEO of WOLF Financial and Co-Founder of Rallies.ai, shares his view:

"This probably settles into a grinding standoff before it ends cleanly. If Israel, Iran, and Washington all decide the cost of a direct fight is climbing faster than anything they'd gain from one, you could see a de-escalation over weeks, maybe a couple months. That's the optimistic read. The more likely version is – this drags on for many months through proxy hits, cyber ops, covert strikes, and shipping lane disruption rather than any kind of formal ceasefire.

What actually determines the timeline comes down to a few things: does it stay between Israel and Iran, or do Hezbollah and Gulf assets get pulled in? How hard does the US work to keep a lid on it? How much pain are sanctions, oil price swings, and domestic pressure putting on Iran? And does either side feel like deterrence is back in place? Backchannel diplomacy that gives both sides a way to pause without looking weak speeds things up. Proxies opening new fronts slows everything down."

Former WSJ Journalist and Forbes Contributor, Kenneth Rapoza, specializes in analyzing geopolitical risk. His take:

"The initial projection for this conflict mirrored a 'Venezuela II' model: a swift U.S. intervention with a defined objective and a rapid exit. However, given Iran's scale and the strategic goal of regime change, this was never going to be as brief as a targeted operation in Caracas. 

But, the market established a clear one-month timeline, anticipating a conclusion by March 31. This outlook factored in high initial volatility in oil and commodities, followed by normalization. This sentiment was supported by recent White House communications suggesting the transition was 'ahead of schedule' and likely to conclude within four to six weeks. 

Should the conflict extend beyond this one-month 'base case,' a broad market repricing is inevitable. This shift would likely impact interest rates and trigger a global re-evaluation of the Trump administration's geopolitical standing, its long-term legacy, and the viability of the 'America First' trade agenda."

Glen Carey, the Founder and Editor‑in‑Chief of European Capital Insights, a digital publication providing analytical coverage of Europe, notes:

"The US-Israeli military operations against Iran show no imminent sign of ending, even as Washington reportedly sent a 15-point plan to Tehran via Pakistan to halt the conflict. It remains unclear whether Iran views the plan as a viable basis for negotiations. Both the Trump administration and the Iranian leadership appear prepared to sustain hostilities for now. Still, Trump faces growing pressure from the war's spillover into equity and oil markets. He will be keen to limit the impact of inflation on US consumer spending ahead of November's midterm elections. The proposal may signal an attempt by the White House to shape an off‑ramp from a conflict that has rattled global markets and strained Washington's ties with its European allies. The major unknown is how long Iran can withstand the US-Israeli attacks without undermining the Islamic regime's 47-year rule."

Luis Flavio Nunes, a market analyst focusing on the incentives that truly drive market behavior, observes:

"Almost a month into the US-Israel-Iran war, the end date is less a military question than a political one. Iran’s conventional forces are decimated, but its true leverage (the Strait of Hormuz and oil shock capacity) still remains.

Markets are pricing in a ceasefire by late May or June 2026, and that’s plausible. November’s midterms give Trump a hard deadline to declare victory, while S&P volatility and $6/gallon gas are eroding his political base. The White House needs a 'victory' by summer, but the deeper problem is a rift inside the alliance itself.

Trump’s exit conditions are essentially political: a ceasefire, a nuclear concession he can announce at a podium, and a way to pivot back to the economy before November. He needs the optics of victory, not total Iranian capitulation. Netanyahu, instead, wants permanent, physical elimination of Iran’s nuclear capability. A paper deal that leaves centrifuges in the ground is, from Israel’s view, just a delayed catastrophe.

Every time Netanyahu strikes unilaterally (like South Pars on March 18), he’s really sabotaging the deal track to prevent Trump from declaring 'mission accomplished' too early.

The biggest external risks are Netanyahu’s unilateral strikes and Russia’s intel support for Iran, both of which could extend the timeline. Miss the June window, and markets will reprice sharply. Watch Hormuz, not the battlefield."

Distinguished macro analyst Nigam Arora, who is the founder of global investment research firm – The Arora Report, comments:

"Despite President Donald Trump declaring the war 'won,' the reality on the ground is far less clear. Iran has rejected ceasefire proposals and called talks with the U.S. 'illogical,' while both sides are holding firm on maximalist demands. The U.S. is pushing for sweeping concessions—including zero nuclear enrichment and dismantling of facilities—while Iran is demanding reparations, no sanctions, and greater regional control.

This wide gap suggests a comprehensive deal is unlikely in the near term. Instead, the most probable outcome is a minimalist ceasefire designed to pause hostilities and allow further negotiations. Markets are currently betting on this outcome, largely ignoring the risk of prolonged conflict.

If this base case plays out, a ceasefire could emerge in the near term (weeks). However, a full resolution—given deep structural disagreements – could take months or longer, with a continued risk of escalation if talks fail."

Disclaimer: This article reflects insights and analysis from multiple contributors. It is an editorial compilation and does not necessarily represent the views of MarketDash.