Despite an apparent stalemate in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict between the US and Iran, analysts are confident the parties will not return to full-scale hostilities. Reuters, citing a US official, reports that President Donald Trump was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposals, which sharply reduced hopes for a swift settlement. Experts emphasize that the current situation resembles a slowdown and delays in negotiations rather than a complete collapse of diplomacy.
Tehran put forward a compromise plan proposing to postpone discussion of the nuclear program until the war ends and maritime navigation issues are resolved. The initiative includes three stages: a ceasefire by the US and Israel, guarantees against the resumption of hostilities, and only then addressing the nuclear dossier. However, CNN sources say that at National Security Council meetings Trump made it clear he is unlikely to accept these terms. Washington fears that re-opening the Strait of Hormuz before addressing uranium enrichment would deprive the US of a key leverage point.
Mutual accusations continue to escalate. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi blamed Washington for the failure of talks, calling “excessive American demands” the reason the previous round collapsed. In response Trump said the deal is absolutely simple: “They (Iran) know what the agreement must include. It’s very simple: they cannot have nuclear weapons. Otherwise there is no point in meeting.” Tehran, in turn, rejects negotiations under threat or blockade, viewing actions such as a naval blockade as violations of any ceasefire.
Although direct talks have outwardly reached an impasse, diplomatic efforts continue through unofficial channels. Tehran has sent “written messages” to Washington via Pakistani intermediaries, clearly setting out its “red lines” on the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, Araghchi conducted a regional tour, visiting Pakistan, Oman and Russia for consultations with allies and third parties. This behind-the-scenes diplomacy signals a mutual desire to keep lines of communication open despite public hardness.
Observers believe that restoring genuine diplomatic trust will take years. As expert Emma Shortis notes, “trust is built over years.” She points out there is room to maneuver on issues such as uranium enrichment, but warns of the unpredictability of leaders who can suddenly change position. In addition, Trump is under growing domestic pressure over the effect that closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have on energy prices. Scholars describe the current situation as neither peace nor war — a fragile balance that could persist for a long time, recalling the lengthy negotiations that preceded the 2015 nuclear deal or the Paris talks of 1973. It appears the parties are prepared for a long “frozen conflict” until one side can force concessions from the other or the international context changes.
Comments on the news
Why is the Strait of Hormuz such an important lever in negotiations for the US, and how does its closure affect the global economy? - The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic “chokepoint” through which about 20–25% of the world’s oil shipments pass. For the US it is a lever because the threat of its closure by Iran immediately raises oil prices and destabilizes global energy markets. If the strait is closed, the world economy would face a sharp spike in fuel costs, shortages in importing countries (for example, Japan, India, China) and increased inflation. For Iran it is a way to force the US to make concessions, since any conflict in the strait risks direct military confrontation.
Who is Abbas Araghchi and what role did he play in previous Iran-US negotiations, such as the 2015 nuclear deal? - Abbas Araghchi is an influential Iranian diplomat and former deputy foreign minister. He was a key Iranian negotiator during the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA). Araghchi was responsible for technical and political aspects and took part in the six-party talks with the “P5+1” (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany). He is regarded as a pragmatic and flexible negotiator capable of finding compromises, while strictly adhering to Tehran’s official “red lines.”
What are Iran’s “red lines” on the nuclear program and how do they define Tehran’s negotiating position? - Iran’s “red lines” are inviolable conditions that Tehran refuses to discuss or violate. In the context of the nuclear program they include: the right to enrich uranium at industrial scales (for example, up to 3.67% or higher, depending on demands), refusal to completely dismantle nuclear infrastructure (for example, centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow), and the requirement for removal of all sanctions — not only nuclear but also those related to terrorism and human rights. These “red lines” shape Iran’s hard position: if a negotiating party demands their violation, Tehran is prepared to break off talks. They also serve as an internal political support for the government, demonstrating that the country will not “capitulate” to the West.
Full version: تجارب تاريخية شبيهة.. ماذا يعني انسداد المسار الدبلوماسي بين واشنطن وطهران؟