The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States stems largely from Iran's insistence on continuing uranium enrichment under strict IAEA monitoring, alongside the Trump administration's pursuit of a long-term agreement with Tehran. This study examines plausible scenarios for Iran–U.S. relations from the perspective of Iranian academic elites. Given the exploratory nature of the research, a qualitative approach based on thematic analysis was employed. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 25 Iranian academic elites. The findings identified four main scenarios: (1) escalation of tensions, identified by eight respondents (32%) as the most likely scenario with a probability of 70–80%; (2) "neither war nor peace," selected by seven respondents (28%); (3) a limited agreement, favored by six respondents (24%); and (4) peace and the full lifting of sanctions, identified by four respondents (16%). All scenarios were assigned a relative probability of 70–80% by their supporters. Among these, a limited agreement has long been considered an important objective for Iran because it carries relatively lower costs for both sides and could enable the United States to pursue its goals without military confrontation. However, the major obstacle remains U.S. opposition to Iran maintaining nuclear capabilities, driven by concerns over a possible shift toward nuclear deterrence and regional power rebalancing. Following the Twelve-Day War, the United States intensified efforts to resolve the enrichment issue and related disputes with Iran; therefore, until these issues are settled, the likelihood of escalating tensions remains high.