THE latest proposal for peace between the US and Iran is the most controversial yet – even before we know the full details.
Over the weekend, Reuters reported that the ‘Pakistani army’ (the mediator) was making ‘encouraging’ progress toward a final understanding. Two Pakistani sources said the proposal under discussion is ‘fairly comprehensive to terminate the war’.
Unnamed US officials suggested that the two sides are discussing a 60-day ceasefire, during which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic, the US Navy would relax its blockade of Iranian traffic, the US government would consider relaxing some sanctions and unfreezing some assets, and the two sides would plan subsequent talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, Western sanctions relief, Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and Iran’s withdrawal of support for Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Iran has countered by repeating prior demands for Israeli and US guarantees against renewed attacks, full relief from sanctions, and Iranian sovereignty over the strait, before peace can be negotiated.
On Sunday, an unnamed Iranian source denied a claim made by unnamed US officials that Iran is willing to hand over its stock of enriched uranium. Indeed, the source denied that any nuclear issue is part of the proposal.
As ever, Iran is a rats’ nests of contradictory voices. Moderates tell Western media of ‘progress’. But hawks within the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) tell Iranian media of its military resilience and its commitment to prior demands.
An unspecified Iranian source told CNN that the proposals mediated by Pakistan have made ‘a lot of progress’ and could mark a ‘turning point’ toward a ‘new era of stability and prosperity’ in the region. An Iranian source told a journalist from Al Jazeera that the two central issues are the mechanism for unfreezing Iranian assets and the scope of the ceasefire in Lebanon.
But the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency complained of US ‘obstruction’ on a couple of issues, and that the whole proposal would fall apart if the United States does not meet Iranian demands.
For the IRGC, the leading issues likely involve the strait, control over which has always been a leading IRGC demand (partly because the IRGC levies the tolls from its protection racket).
Major General Mohsen Rezaei, formerly commander of the IRGC and now an adviser to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said that any renewal of the war would start in the strait and expand into the Indian Ocean, and that the United States is in a ‘complete stalemate’.
Major General Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi, commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, promised that Mojtaba’s ‘strong Iran’ strategy would produce a ‘new regional and global order . . . in which foreigners will have no place’.
The US seems to want a deal more rapidly than Iran does. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly warned President Donald Trump that prolonging the conflict without reopening the strait would accelerate the costs of borrowing and fuel and therefore commodities and consumer goods (a spiral in which Britain is already further down).
Economics leads politics this year. US midterm elections are coming up in November. A majority of Americans view the war as a mistake and disapprove of its handling. Polls show Trump’s approval rating dipping to about 37 per cent, a new low for a second-term President. However, the other parties and houses of government are doing no better, and MAGA-Republicans did better in the primaries than expected. Trump consistently does better in elections than surveys forecast.
This gives Trump more room for bloody-mindedness on Iran than his opponents expect.
Trump is stuck in a contradiction of confidence and bluster. On Saturday, Trump described the deal as ‘largely negotiated’. But on Sunday, he wrote that he had told subordinates ‘not to rush into a deal’ and posted an AI-generated image of a bomb emblazoned with ‘Thank you for your attention to this matter!’
On Sunday, a US official told reporters that a deal is days away, at best.
Discouraging Trump from rushing into a deal are Republican hawks who warn him against rewarding terrorism. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted that ending the war now would give Iran a victory it did not earn on the battlefield. Senator Ted Cruz posted on X that the war would be a ‘disastrous mistake’ if it ends with ‘an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz’. Similarly, Senator Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, tweeted on Saturday: ‘The rumoured 60-day ceasefire – with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith – would be a disaster.’
And now there’s a public spat between former and current Trump administrators. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, tweeted on Sunday that lifting sanctions relief and unfreezing assets would be paying ‘tribute’ to a terrorist regime.
Trump’s former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, tweeted that the reported proposal ‘seem[s] straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook’, referring to the three officials in Barack Obama’s administration who helped to develop the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which rewarded Iran with relief on sanctions in return for commitments to peaceful development of nuclear energy.
White House director of communications Stephen Cheung tweeted for Pompeo to ‘shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals’.
Trump’s room for a peaceful end to the ceasefire is narrowing. But that might not be a bad thing. The war that the US and Israel launched in February would be pointless if it leaves a terrorist state in greater control of the strait and its proxies.
Editor’s update: It’s is hard to keep abreast of fast changing developments in the Iran war. Since the article above was filed the United States launched new ‘self-defense strikes’ in southern Iran (late Monday) as President Donald Trump continued pushing for a broader peace agreement aimed at ending the Iran war. According to U.S. Central Command, American forces targeted Iranian missile launch sites and boats allegedly attempting to place naval mines near the Strait of Hormuz.
CENTCOM said the operation was carried out to ‘protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces’ during the ongoing ceasefire period. Iranian state-linked media later reported explosions near Bandar Abbas and claimed several members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed in the strikes. According to American Liberty, Tehran condemned the attacks as a violation of the fragile ceasefire and warned retaliation remained possible if American military operations continue.
The strikes came just hours after Trump publicly claimed negotiations with Iran were ‘“’proceeding nicely’ and suggested a broader agreement could be finalized within days.
U.S. officials said ongoing talks in Qatar remain focused on extending the ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and addressing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.
Jennifer Griffin reported that a senior U.S. official said the American military destroyed two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vessels and also struck a surface-to-air missile site in Bandar Abbas that had allegedly targeted U.S. warplanes.
According to the official, ‘These were defensive strikes’.
Two well-placed sources also told Griffin the operations were not viewed as signaling the collapse of the ceasefire agreement.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that any final agreement must guarantee freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from rebuilding nuclear weapons capability He also said a deal was still possible and pointed to talks on Tuesday between Iran’s top negotiator and foreign minister and Qatar’s prime minister.
Trump has also linked the negotiations to a broader regional realignment effort centered on expanding the Abraham Accords, urging additional Muslim-majority nations to normalize relations with Israel as part of a wider settlement framework.
The situation remains unstable.
