One month in, President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is at a crossroads.

A fast-escalating conflict could widen further with the injection of US ground troops and cause a worsening worldwide economic conflagration.

Despite Trump’s insistence that Iran and the US are having “productive” contacts, there is no sign either side has the political dexterity to end the war. Iran has denied direct talks are taking place. America’s ally Israel, while expected to fall behind Trump if a ceasefire is reached, seems more reconciled to the prospect of a longer engagement.

But the high costs of the showdown for the United States and the Islamic Republic also give reason to hope the war could be reined in before it gets even worse.

Pakistan took the initiative on Sunday by leading a nascent third-party attempt with Middle Eastern powers to look for a way out. The effort has a daunting mandate: bridging antithetical endgame demands of an erratic US president and an Iranian regime defined by hatred of America.

This war has already shown the US and Israel have devastated Iran’s air forces, navy and much of its ability to pose existential external threats. But they’ve so far failed to eradicate the revolutionary regime that has haunted both countries for decades. At issue now is whether anyone can build an off-ramp that might deprive either side of a knockout but offer political and strategic carrots for each to claim vindication.

Trump claimed on Sunday night that the US and Iran were talking indirectly and directly and that Tehran had agreed to “most of” the 15 demands Washington had made to end the war. He didn’t give specifics, and his assertions were impossible to verify.

He also appeared to be building a misleading template for a total US victory, arguing that the killing of senior Iranian leaders including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei equalled “regime change,” even if there’d been no letup of vicious repression of civilians whom he’d previously pledged to protect.

“We’ve had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One. “The next regime is mostly dead, and the third regime, we’re dealing with different people than anybody’s dealt with before.”

It’s impossible for outsiders to get full visibility into Iran. But the best estimate of many Iran experts is that while many top clerical and military leaders have perished, the regime previously decentralized power to ensure it could survive high-profile assassinations and still appears to be controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

On Sunday, Iran warned the US against any ground operations on its territory. Its defiance has led some analysts to conclude that Tehran — despite being critically outgunned — has now seized the strategic initiative. It certainly doesn’t look like it’s desperate for a “deal,” as Trump claims.

Iran’s regime saved itself with classically Trumpian move: It weaponized a point of unique leverage for economic and geopolitical gain by closing the Strait of Hormuz — an oil exporting choke point. Economic reverberations are piling pressure on Trump inside and outside the US, as Iran becomes the latest adversary to counter America’s military superiority with an asymmetric response.

The war has already surpassed the lower marker of the “four to six weeks” timeline initially sketched by the administration. Trump’s still-hazy rationale for waging war is matched by his inability to point to an off-ramp. The closure of the strait and Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium, meanwhile, make it hard for him to use a characteristic device — a unilateral declaration of victory. He’s therefore facing a bleak decision with tragic echoes in modern American warfare: whether or not to escalate the war in search of a way out.

Still, the pain that both sides would endure if the war went on means there are plausible reasons to talk.

Iran is isolated; has become a pariah in its own region; and has absorbed cataclysmic damage to its military capacity. While it has shown a continued ability to hit Israel, US military installations and American-allied Gulf states with missiles and drones, its resources are finite and it badly needs sanctions relief to rescue a shattered economy.

A halt to fighting might allow Iran to lock in its goal of regime survival. And by demonstrating that it can close strait, it might have created a deterrent effect if either the US or Israel wanted to restart the war.

Trump has good reasons to end the war too. His approval ratings are diving, stocks are plunging and economic distress is mounting among midterm election voters already struggling to pay for food and housing. The conflict jars with a dominant principle of his “America First” movement — no more foreign wars. And his second term and presidential legacy risk being consumed.

Conditions for a way out do exist — at a pinch. The question is whether a US president who has hardly lived up to his claim to be the world’s greatest negotiator and a remnant Iranian regime that has seen its top leaders wiped out can show the skill and will to provide each other a face-saving exit.

The war is expanding — not dying down

The need for fighting to stop was laid bare as the war expanded at the weekend.

Yemen’s Houthis — an Iran-backed militia — launched a missile attack against Israel in their first major move of the conflict. There were no casualties, but the move raised concerns that another key shipping route could be under threat.

“I think the Houthis starting to strike, if you will, that’s going to become the Western Front of this war,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander, told CNN’s Michael Smerconish. He said the Houthis’ ability to control maritime traffic headed for the Suez Canal while the strait is closed was “an enormous gun pointed at the head of the global economy.”

This could exacerbate economic impacts already being felt, and that are likely to worsen as the last ships that left the Persian Gulf before the war reach their destinations. In one sign of the global impact of the war, the Philippines has declared a national energy emergency amid rising political unrest.

In other signs of escalation, at least 10 US service members were injured in an attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Iran vowed to target US and Israeli universities, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the Israel Defense Forces to carve out an expanded security buffer zone in Lebanon.

Against this dire backdrop, the most concrete diplomatic initiative so far played out in Islamabad. Pakistan hosted talks involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. It’s a rare nation with strong relations with Washington and Tehran. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement that his country “will be honored to host and facilitate meaningful talks between the two sides in coming days.” Two Trump administration officials told CNN last week that discussions in Pakistan were possible. But there’s no confirmation that they are imminent.

The USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship carrying Marines, has arrived in the region. Another Marine Expeditionary Unit is en route from the US West Coast. More than 1,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne have been ordered to deploy.

The buildup is far short of an invasion force. But analysts talk of a possible assault on Kharg Island — the epicenter of Iran’s oil industry in the northern Persian Gulf — or other strategic islands critical to cross-strait navigation. Another ultra-high-risk US mission could aim to snatch Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium that might allow it to reconstitute its nuclear program.

But the possibility of heavy US casualties in any ground battles is sharpening debate over the war back home, where even some lawmakers loyal to Trump are worried. Democrats are meanwhile warning against an escalation.

“There’s a reason why Donald Trump is not coming before the American people for approval for this war. It’s because he knows what the American people feel, which is that they don’t want this, that they want a government that is focused on them, lowering costs,” Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Those potential costs on the battlefield and at home only underscore the president’s unappetizing options and the gamble he took by deciding to go to war in the first place.

History shows most modern wars end more messily than presidents predict when they launch them. Even if Trump now opts for diplomacy over escalation, this one now threatens to undercut his bullish claims about the invulnerability of US power and his own global dominance.