Are the US and Iran on the brink of a full peace deal – or a return to all-out war?
On the one hand, President Donald Trump has told reporters in recent days that Iran has fully accepted all the conditions of the United States and that negotiations are progressing well, and Vice President JD Vance is expected to land in Pakistan later this week. On the other hand, after briefly announcing its reopening last week, Iran once again declared the Strait of Hormuz open. it is closedfiring on ships passing through the waterway over the weekend, and the US continues to maintain a small blockade on Iranian ports, seized an Iranian ship on Sunday. It is unclear whether Iranian negotiators will even be there to meet with Vance in Islamabad.
There may also be a third option: The current situation – certainly not peace, but not a complete return to war – can continue for the time being. For now, that’s an outcome the U.S. and Iran would probably prefer to making what each would see as a humiliating compromise. But the costs of the situation continue to grow every day as the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed and the region remains under the threat of returning to war.
In some ways, the dynamic is not all that different from what it has been throughout the weeks of the US-Israeli bombing campaign: a competition to see which side can endure the pain the longest. The difference in this new phase of the war is that where it stands now is essentially Iran’s decision.
Can the US and Iran reach a yes?
The main force at the moment is that the US has the motivation to end the war but is not sure how. Iran has the means to end the war but is not sure if it wants to.
Before the war, the United States wanted to pressure Iran to completely abandon its nuclear program, while the hawks hoped for a broader agreement that included Iran giving up its support to foreign proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen and accepting limits on its ballistic missile program. of Trump more definitive statements to journalists, The last two goals have fallen more by the wayside. This is now a conversation about Iran’s nuclear program and the future control of the Strait of Hormuz – something that was not even an issue before this war started.
If Iran had a real nuclear weapon right nowIt probably wouldn’t have been in this situation, but it’s clear that his enrichment program did more to draw targets for the country than to protect it. Even before the war started, Iran was is reportedly considering agreeing to a major deal on its nuclear programincluding reducing its stockpile of 400 kg of highly enriched uranium. The bombing campaign between the US and Israel may have made a nuclear deal more likely, but not in the way it was promised.
“The fact that (the Iranians) now have the Strait of Hormuz, as a result of the US-Israeli attack on Iran – that’s a positive trend, which means that they have a free hand now to make a deal on the nuclear issue,” said Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute.
Last week, Axios reported that the United States was consider the plan provide $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Iran turning over or reducing its 400 kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium. This will be a tough deal for Trump to sell politically, though, given that even this week he has continued to attack the Obama administration for the “$1.7 billion in ‘GREEN’ cash” given to Iran as part of the 2015 nuclear deal. But, with inspections and verification, it would bring more progress on Iran’s nuclear issue than seemed possible a few weeks ago, and Iran’s more confident stance as a result of taking Hormuz is at least partly to thank for that.
The ocean issue may be more difficult to resolve than the nuclear issue. Iran’s proposal to impose tariffs on seagoing ships will not be acceptable not only to the United States but to its trading partners as well. The strait is an international waterway, and Iran’s attempt to control it defies the principles of free navigation that underpin the international trading system. But that doesn’t mean Iran will give up its new economic weapon without getting anything in return.
The main goals of the Iranian regime in this conflict have been, firstly, to survive and secondly, to impose a cost on the United States and its allies so strong that they will not be tempted to attack the country again in a few months. By following that trend, Iran has succeeded with the second goal, perhaps even more than expected. But now the debate has opened about whether it is time for Iran to compromise and withdraw from the conflict or continue to punish its enemies.
In an interview with Iran’s national television at the end of the week, parliament speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the chief mediator between Iran and the United States. he defended the conversationsaying that although Iran will conduct a difficult business, the military capabilities of the United States should not be underestimated, and Iran’s position should not be exaggerated. Ghalibaf may have been responding to accusations from new supporters rising within the Iranian Republican Guard and to a large night protest in Tehran by government supporters asking the government to disagree and continue the struggle.
Will $20 billion – “GREEN” cash or some other form – be enough to get Iran to divest itself of uranium and its control of the ocean stream? Maybe. But as Ali Vaez, the Iran director at the International Crisis Group says, “the sea has given Iran a weapon of mass destruction that certainly has deterrence value. But Iran’s new hardliners may want to combine that with a weapon of mass destruction anyway.”
In other words, instead of changing the economic deterrence to nuclear, Iran could just decide to have both.
What happens at the same time?
Trump said this week that he is “most likely“to extend the Iran ceasefire, which expires on Tuesday.” But privately, according to the Wall Street JournalTrump is concerned about the possibility of using military force to reopen the strait, telling his aides that US troops sent to occupy Kharg Island will be “sitting ducks” for revenge against Iran and comparing the situation to Jimmy Carter’s failure to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1979. Despite Iran’s Defense Minister. Pete Hegseth’s warning that the United States is “bound and loaded” to follow through on Trump’s threat to stop the war before destroying Iran’s electrical grid, a return to full-scale war like we saw in March seems unlikely.
Even if the ceasefire expires this week – which is highly likely given that Vance may not even arrive in Pakistan until after it expires – that does not mean that the US will resume airstrikes against Iran or that Iran will resume its missile and drone attacks on the Gulf. The strait could remain closed, with constant fighting, a situation that some have compared to the 1980s “Cannon War” in a stream that continued for years alongside the decade’s Iran-Iraq war.
The difference today is that Tank Wars have never been disruptive more than 2 percent of ships passing through the strait. The current crisis is disrupting more than 90 percent.
“Despite how it likes to pretend it doesn’t care if the Strait is open or not, the United States cannot afford to close the Strait for much longer,” said Gregory Brew, Iran and energy analyst at Eurasia Group.
Trump has so far benefited from the fact that the United States is less exposed to shortages and disruptions caused by the closure of the channel than other regions, especially in East Asia. And the stock market and oil futures markets have been volatile but less affected than one might expect. But the world where Europe is lack of jet fuel in a matter of weeks is not one that is going to leave the US economy unaffected indefinitely. Energy Secretary Chris Wright already says US gas prices are likely to remain the same above $3 per gallon until after 2027 – after this year’s midterm elections. Relatively high markets are responding expectations of the looming deal, but it is likely to change if the administration appears to be settling for a completely closed path or even tariffs on Iran.
Iran’s rulers, with their newfound bravado, also desperately need time and money to rebuild their regime, replenish their defense ranks, and begin the process of rebuilding what the United States and Israel have destroyed.
Both sides have an incentive to prevent the maritime conflict from escalating. But the positions of the two sides are still far apart, and as the conflict continues, the risk of miscalculation remains.
Although the tank wars of the 1980s may have been on a much smaller scale than the current crisis, they included a disastrous A US warship accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian planeand killed nearly 300 people. This war has already included a notable example of wrongdoing The targeting of the United States caused a major disaster.
The US and Iran may want to keep this next phase of the war as a low-level conflict, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way.
