Iran and USA: Ceasefire, Talks, Contradictions

The forty-day war between the US and Israel and Iran has been paused. Islamabad and Geneva are potential platforms for US-Iranian talks. Will the shaky ceasefire bring lasting peace?

US changes tactics in Iran confrontation

One of the most painful blows to Iran was the assassination of the supreme spiritual leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking military commanders, as well as the mass killing of schoolchildren and colossal destruction of industrial and energy infrastructure. However, President Trump’s statements about overthrowing the Iranian regime by eliminating Supreme Leader Khamenei and the heads of security forces turned out to be far from reality. Iran’s political system showed its resilience as Iranian society rallied around the government in the face of external aggression, and new leaders emerged to replace those who had been killed. The brutality of the aggressors, in essence, provoked a hardening of the Iranian authorities’ policies and enhanced the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in state governance.

Iran’s most effective and predictable counterstrike was the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This triggered a sharp rise in prices on global energy markets, with the price of oil jumping to $117 per barrel. Further escalation of the conflict could have doubled that figure. Many European and Asian countries faced the threat of energy supply disruptions and were forced to bring their oil reserves out of storage. The engines of global economic growth found themselves drawn into a global catastrophe.

Theoretically, the US Army did not rule out conducting a localized ground operation to capture Iran’s Kharg Island or nuclear facilities. Additional military units and equipment were being redeployed to the region. However, nobody could guarantee Trump military success, and the possibility of failure, which would have resulted in a major military and political defeat for the United States, could not be ruled out.

In the end, President Trump refused to further escalate the war. An hour and a half before the expiration of his ultimatum, he decided on a two-week ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations with the participation of mediator countries, including Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, China, and Russia. In effect, the United States is transitioning the confrontation with Iran from a hot conflict phase to a stage of diplomatic confrontation.

The US and Iran’s negotiating postures

In Islamabad, the parties have not yet reached full agreement. The United States insists on the unconditional rollback of Iran’s nuclear program for at least 20 years, with the transfer of all enriched uranium (about 430 kg) to the US. Iran rejects this demand and offers alternative options: IAEA control, a 5-year limitation period, transferring enriched uranium to Russia, or complete freedom for the Islamic Republic to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

Disagreements regarding the limitation of Iran’s missile program also persist, and there is no clarity on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran insists on imposing a fee of $2 million per oil tanker, with subsequent revenue sharing with Oman, or, alternatively, on reparations for the damage caused by the war.

The question of Iran ceasing its support for pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli armed groups in the Middle East has not yet been clarified publicly. However, if the aggression against the Islamic Republic ceases, Tehran will naturally lose the need to use them on the Israeli front.

Being a pragmatist and businessman, President Donald Trump is rather inclined to agree to paid passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, with revenue sharing between Iran and Oman. According to ABC News, he even spoke positively about the possibility of creating a joint US-Iranian enterprise to collect the fee, calling it a “beautiful thing” for ensuring regional security. However, the currency of payment (dollars, yuan, or bitcoins) remains undecided. In that case, Washington would likely demand US involvement in Iran’s oil and gas trade.

Nevertheless, as the German magazine Der Spiegel notes, a temporary ceasefire does not resolve any of the key issues on which the US and Iran have so far been unable to reach an agreement.

When the ceasefire runs out, a choice will have to be made

The question of how the current ceasefire will end remains open and unpredictable. We are faced with two paths: reaching a compromise and peace, or continuing confrontation, which risks a resumption of hostilities or a transition to a protracted “cold war.”

Donald Trump cannot ignore the international community’s criticism (with the exception of Israel), the negative consequences for his election campaign in the United States, and, most importantly, the lack of a clear vision of how to achieve complete military victory over Iran. The two previous military campaigns seriously weakened Iran but did not break it. Trump’s threats to return the country to the Stone Age or destroy its civilization seem to be manifestations of paranoia and confusion.

However, the irrationality of Trump’s actions is bewildering. Given Israeli pressure, one cannot rule out the resumption of hostilities against Iran with renewed vigor, even including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The additional US forces redeployed to the Middle East remain in the region for now. If the head of Mossad, David Barnea, enjoys greater trust than the head of US national intelligence, then there is nothing stopping President Trump from further escapades. But would this be a solution to the Iranian issue or the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency?

Neither the United States nor Iran nor Israel are interested in a nuclear catastrophe. The use of nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic threatens regional and global catastrophe.

Alexander SVARANTS – PhD in Politics, Professor, Specialist in Turkish Studies, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook