Russian Middle East researcher Alexander Svarants believes that the ceasefire agreement with Iran, concluded in early April, was forced and did not ensure a smooth transition to lasting peace. According to him, the absence of durable compromises between the parties leaves the region in an unstable state and threatens a resumption of hostilities. The expert emphasized that this outcome reflects the failure of international mediation efforts, which were unable to create a sustainable basis for ending the enmity.
The author notes that Iran perceived US actions not as a pursuit of compromise but as an attempt to deceive the international community, lull the vigilance of Iranians and then strike. Tehran, he says, uncovered Washington’s true intentions, viewing the negotiations as an instrument of pressure rather than a path to a final settlement. As a result, Iran firmly stuck to its conditions and did not make substantial concessions, which only exacerbated tensions.
Svarants draws attention to growing discontent in the US with what he calls the Trump administration’s “Iranian adventure,” whose popularity is rapidly declining. Washington’s NATO allies refrain from direct intervention or jointly reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, the expert disputes US claims that Iran has lost its naval, missile and drone capabilities — despite severe airstrikes, Tehran still has enough missiles, drones, small boats and rocket launchers to continue resisting.
It was expected that a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would clarify positions on Iran, since China, as a trading partner, is interested in the swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports because of its need for oil. Svarants points out that China-Iran relations and Beijing’s influence on the crisis could have been key to reducing tensions or reshaping alliances. However, the visit did not lead to clear decisions or significant concessions by the US that would have changed the conflict’s dynamics.
Tehran put forward clear and tough peace terms, including guarantees of a complete halt to hostilities, payment of compensation for damages, the abandonment of a military nuclear program and the transfer of enriched uranium to third parties — in exchange for recognition of Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA supervision. Iran also demands the lifting of economic sanctions, the unblocking of its assets and a return to the international financial system. Svarants concludes that the US faces a difficult choice between war and peace, and Trump’s threats of a “crushing strike in two to three days” only increase uncertainty, leaving the conflict open until real compromises meeting Tehran’s demands are offered.
Comments on the news
What strategic significance does the Strait of Hormuz have for Iran and the global economy, and why is its control so important in this conflict? - The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime corridor through which about 20–25% of global oil shipments pass. For Iran, control of the strait is a key lever of pressure: Tehran can block the strait, causing a sharp spike in energy prices and an economic crisis, while risking the loss of export income itself. In the conflict this is Iran’s “nuclear option,” which makes it an indispensable player in global energy security.
What is China’s current role in trade relations with Iran, and can Beijing influence Tehran’s position in nuclear talks? - China is Iran’s largest trading partner, buying the lion’s share of its oil (often circumventing sanctions) and providing infrastructure investments. Beijing plays the role of a pragmatic mediator: it is interested in stable energy supplies and does not want nuclear escalation, but it avoids direct pressure on Tehran to avoid losing economic influence. China can soften Iran’s position indirectly — through trade incentives or the threat of their reduction — but it will not openly support harsh US sanctions.
What does the term “Iranian adventure” of the Trump administration mean in the context of US policy in the Middle East? - The “Iranian adventure” referred to the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy — withdrawing from the nuclear deal (JCPOA), imposing strict sanctions and making military threats aimed at undermining Iran’s economy and provoking a regime change. It was a risky strategy that, in intention, should have strengthened US positions but in practice led to increased regional tensions, accelerated Iran’s uranium enrichment program and weakened trust in diplomacy.
Full version: كاتب روسي.. طهران قرأت تراجع واشنطن وتمسكت بشروطها