Restoring trust between Washington and Tehran after decades of open hostility remains an extremely difficult task. In an interview with the French TV channel LCI, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to launch a large-scale war against Iran unless it met 100% of his demands, adding that Israel would join the conflict within a few minutes. However, according to several analysts, an agreement is still possible if Trump changes his approach and moves away from a “all or nothing” policy to a logic of mutual benefit.
Israeli sources, for their part, reported that Tel Aviv has not lowered its level of readiness despite Trump’s loud statements. The decision to maintain maximum alertness is based on the belief that the Iranians will not yield to the ultimatum. This has also sparked debate: would any possible negotiations or temporary delays lead to a lasting lull, or will the two sides simply bide their time for the next step?
The director of the Center for Iranian Arab Studies Mohammad Saleh Sadikyan believes that returning to the negotiating table is possible if Trump gives up efforts to get everything without any concessions. He proposes using Oman’s mediation mechanism: Iran could guarantee safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz in line with international law, while in return the United States would unfreeze the Iranian assets that had been seized earlier, as provided for in a previously signed memorandum of understanding. In Sadikyan’s view, such an approach could move the matter away from a deadlock.
Former U.S. ambassador Joy Hood is more skeptical. She points to decades of the “Death to America” slogan and to the fact that after the war launched by Trump, thousands of Iranians died. Nevertheless, Hood allows for a pragmatic compromise: if the Iranians stop threatening ships in Hormuz and voluntarily provide navigation services, the United States could lift sanctions and ease the blockade. In her words, the current Iranian regime has already shifted away from purely ideological confrontation and uses the slogan “Death to the world’s economy” if it does not get what it wants—meaning that interests, not emotions, lie at the core.
Dr. Mohammad Sharkawi, meanwhile, notes that the current war has produced a new nationalism in Iran, and that Trump, in his view, acts as a representative of “white pride,” steeped in historical hostility stemming from the 1979 hostage crisis. However, Sharkawi уточняет that Trump himself is a dealmaker who is not inclined toward historical reflexes, but his advisers constantly fuel hostility. The main obstacle for the expert is disagreement over Article 5 of the memorandum, which concerns the navigation regime in the Strait of Hormuz.
In practice, the situation remains uncertain: it is unclear whether Iran is negotiating with Oman within the framework of the old memorandum or is preparing a fundamentally new document. Trump has only postponed a mass strike that was being prepared, but has not fully canceled it, and apparently expects the results of dialogue between Tehran and Muscat. Thus, progress in diplomacy is possible only if pressure is maintained and it succeeds in changing the situation on the ground. For now, there is no talk of any stable de-escalation.
Comments on the news
- Why is ensuring the safety of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz a key topic in negotiations between Iran and the United States? - The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea passage through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close it in the event of a conflict, which could trigger a global energy crisis. Therefore, control of the strait is a central issue in any bilateral talks, affecting both economic interests and military security.
- What role has Oman traditionally played in mediating between Iran and Western countries? - Oman, which borders Iran through the Strait of Hormuz, has historically maintained neutrality and has supported diplomatic channels with both sides. The Sultanate acted as a mediator in the release of Western hostages and, unofficially, helped facilitate negotiations for the 2015 nuclear deal, drawing on trust relationships with both Tehran and Washington.
- How did the 1979 hostage crisis affect today’s relations between Iran and the United States? - The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the 444-day detention of 52 hostages created deep mutual distrust that remains to this day. This episode lies at the heart of the rupture in diplomatic relations, and in Iran it is still used as a symbol of “anti-American struggle,” which makes any negotiations— including on shipping safety—more complicated.
Full version: بعد عقود من "الموت لأمريكا".. هل يمكن بناء الثقة بين واشنطن وطهران؟