The world is holding its breath awaiting the expiration of the ultimatum set by US President Donald Trump to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The strait, a strategically important sea lane for transporting oil, has become the epicenter of tension between the US and Iran. Expectations are split between a possible extension of the deadline and the start of a large-scale military escalation. American sources indicate the decision could lean toward a postponement if talks show progress; however, the final choice rests solely with Trump. The international and regional community anxiously watch the last hours, which could lead either to a temporary lull or to an expansion of the conflict.
Contradictory consultations are underway within US government circles about the best path forward. Some officials and intermediaries do not rule out extending the ultimatum, as Trump has done before, especially given his stated desire to "finish the war" and the American public's reluctance to become embroiled in protracted conflicts. However, other reports express doubt that the president will be willing to concede this time, noting the huge gap between Washington's and Tehran's positions. Tension is likely to persist until Tuesday evening, the set deadline, with Trump's assessment possibly changing based on overnight negotiations.
On the military front, a ready plan is reported for a large-scale US–Israeli bombing of Iranian energy facilities if ordered. American officials indicate that strike orders could be given Tuesday evening if talks do not lead to an agreement. Iranian authorities fear that Israeli strikes, including possible targeted eliminations, could continue even after any potential understanding. This possibility shows that the escalation option remains real and prepared for rapid execution if the White House decides to act decisively.
Inside the US administration, some commentators and leaders describe Trump's approach as the toughest. Axios, citing an official, even characterizes him as "the most bloodthirsty" on the Iran file. Comparing Trump to other administration figures, such as the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, highlights his harsher and more independent stance, distinct from the official line. Such descriptions reflect concerns that the decision on war or peace hinges on a sharp presidential view that may favor a military option.
For its part, Iran, according to The New York Times, presented a ten-point proposal for ending the war. It includes lifting sanctions, guarantees against future attacks, and cessation of Israeli strikes on the pro-Iranian Lebanese group Hezbollah. In return, Tehran proposes lifting the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and charging fees of about two million dollars per passing vessel, sharing revenue with the Sultanate of Oman. The Iranian side suggests using its share to restore damaged infrastructure instead of direct compensation. The proposal was conveyed through Pakistani mediation. Iranian state media said the proposal emphasizes the need for a "permanent cessation of the war" and includes a protocol for safe passage through the strait.
Comments on the news
How exactly does the group "Hezbollah" operate in the region and why is the cessation of Israeli strikes against it a key condition for Iran? - Hezbollah is the most powerful non-state military organization in the Middle East and a key Iranian ally in the so-called "axis of resistance." Iran views it as a strategic asset for deterring Israel and increasing its influence in Lebanon and the region. Iran considers stopping Israeli strikes on Hezbollah critically important because it directly affects its own security and regional prestige, and because Tehran provides the organization with significant military, financial, and ideological support.
On what legal basis does Iran propose charging fees for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and are there historical precedents for coastal states imposing such charges? - Iran may point to its rights as a coastal state to regulate navigation in its territorial waters under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, charging fees for mere transit through an international strait used for international navigation conflicts with the principle of freedom of transit passage. Historical precedents of charging passage fees exist (for example, the Ottoman Empire), but in modern international law, especially after 1982, such a practice for international straits is considered unacceptable.
Why was Pakistan chosen as the mediator to convey Iran's proposal, and what is the history of its diplomatic relations with Tehran and Washington? - Pakistan was chosen because of its unique relations with both sides: it maintains long, if sometimes complicated, ties with Iran, sharing a border and historical cultural links, while also being a long-standing US partner, particularly on security issues. Islamabad has traditionally tried to balance between Tehran and Washington, acting as a potential bridge. Its diplomatic history with Iran includes both cooperation and tension due to Sunni–Shia differences and the situation in Afghanistan. With the US, Pakistan’s relationship has been that of "ally but not satellite," with periods of close cooperation and serious disagreements.
Full version: بين التمديد والتصعيد.. العالم يترقب قرار ترمب قبل ساعات من انتهاء مهلته لإيران