After two weeks of airstrikes, Washington announced a pause in the military campaign, which has led to a fragile ceasefire in a protracted five-month conflict. President Donald Trump said there have been “good negotiations” with Tehran and that an agreement could be reached, but he warned that if the contacts yield no results, the attacks will resume. At an election rally in Michigan, he used hardline rhetoric, saying Iran “cannot be bribed” and must be “crushed,” but then added that “very friendly negotiations” are underway at the moment. Trump also said that intermediary countries asked him to halt the strikes and that the United States has entered “in-depth talks” with Iran.
Tehran, however, presented an entirely different account of events. Iran’s Foreign Ministry official Ismail Baghaei said intermediaries may be conveying messages from the United States, but “we are currently not holding any negotiations with the United States,” calling reports that Iran asked for talks “false.” According to Reuters, a senior Iranian official confirmed that Iran will halt its attacks as long as the unilateral ceasefire announced by Trump remains in effect. As a result, the sides interpret the very nature of the contacts differently.
The root of the current escalation lies in a dispute over the Strait of Hormuz—a strategic sea route that carries a significant share of the world’s oil. Iran opened fire on ships that had used an alternative route near Oman’s coast, a route recommended by Washington. The crisis dates back to a temporary arrangement reached in June, which assumed consultations would end by the end of August; however, the parties diverged in their interpretation of provisions governing passage through the strait. The United States insists on freedom of navigation, while Iran argues for its right to control transit and charge fees.
Oman acted as mediator, proposing the creation of a “regional coalition” to manage maritime security, search-and-rescue operations, and cooperation—with voluntary funding from states in the region, as well as shipping and oil companies. Iran, however, continues to insist on maintaining control, including the collection of fees. In parallel, reports say representatives from Qatar, Pakistan, and Egypt are also taking part in the mediation, trying to resolve disagreements over how operations in the strait should be managed. Baghaei confirmed that talks with Oman on “general principles and mechanisms for implementation” are progressing positively, and that Washington is not a direct party.
From a military standpoint, Trump’s decision to delay escalation is tied to command concerns. Senior military figures told the president that “available targets are starting to run out,” and General Dan Keane expressed concern about ammunition depletion. According to ABC, Keane and Vice President JD Vance feared the war could expand, though they also confirmed the ability to carry out other options. Trump denied there is an ammunition shortage, but sources cited by The Wall Street Journal pointed to limited stocks of air-defense interceptors amid Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones.
Washington is betting on economic pressure—sanctions from the U.S. Treasury Department. According to Axios, Iranians “fear the Treasury more than the Pentagon,” and it is expected that investors will begin withdrawing money en masse, alongside a gasoline shortage. Intelligence reports cite complaints about an inability to pay fighters’ salaries due to financial constraints. At the same time, it is acknowledged that sanctions and a maritime blockade may take longer to compel Iran to negotiate than a large-scale bombing campaign. Domestic pressure on Trump is increasing ahead of November’s midterm elections: only 33% of Americans support the war, while 69% say the goals of the military intervention are not clear enough.
The decisive factor will likely be the upcoming meeting between Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—after which the president will probably make a final decision on the mediator proposal. While the fragile truce hangs in the balance, the outcome of diplomatic maneuvers will determine whether the pause leads to a real compromise in the Strait of Hormuz or remains only a temporary respite before a new round of conflict.
Comments on the news
- Why did Oman take on the role of intermediary between the United States and Iran, and what historical links does the country have with Tehran? — Oman traditionally maintains a neutral position in regional conflicts and supports diplomatic channels with Iran even during periods of escalation. Historical ties include joint management of the Strait of Hormuz until 1971, similar views on several OPEC-related issues, and Oman’s role in the secret negotiations for the 2015 nuclear deal. The sultanate is viewed by Tehran as a trusted mediator without direct confrontation with Iran’s interests.
- On what legal basis does Iran claim the right to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz and charge fees, considering international maritime law? — Iran cites Article 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which allows fees to be charged for specific services (such as pilotage or ensuring security), but not for transit itself. Tehran also points to historical rights and national legislation that declare the strait part of territorial waters. In practice, however, the international community recognizes the Strait of Hormuz as an international passage with a right of peaceful transit, and Iran’s demands are often challenged as exceeding UNCLOS.
- What structural features of the Iranian economy (such as dependence on gasoline imports) make it especially vulnerable to U.S. Treasury sanctions? — Iran’s economy depends critically on oil exports (about 60% of budget revenues), but it suffers from a shortage of oil-refining capacity, forcing it to import up to 30–50% of the gasoline it consumes. U.S. sanctions block access to the international banking system (SWIFT), insurance services, and tanker fleets, paralyzing both crude oil exports and refined-products imports. Other vulnerabilities include dependence on importing food, medicines, and spare parts, as well as a large share of the shadow economy that is not prepared for legal settlements.
- What role does the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) play in ensuring control over the Strait of Hormuz and in the negotiation process with the United States? — The IRGC, specifically the Navy structure “Sepah,” directly handles military patrols of the strait, laying mines, deploying fast boats, and anti-ship missiles. In the negotiation process, the IRGC often acts as an “internal player”—its commanders (for example, Navy Commander Ali Reza Tangsiri) publicly declare “red lines,” which limits the flexibility of civilian negotiators. Any agreement with the United States requires either approval from the supreme leader who controls the IRGC, or preserving economic privileges for the IRGC (such as maintaining contracts in the oil sector), which effectively makes the military structure a veto player in diplomacy.
Full version: الأهداف تنفد والوسطاء يتحركون.. لماذا أوقف ترمب قصف إيران؟