The ceasefire agreed between the United States and Iran to facilitate talks to end the war launched by the US Army alongside Israel has now been in effect for two months. This period of relative calm comes with the conflict reignited by the latest exchanges of attacks between Washington and Tehran, while talks advance slowly and have become another tool of confrontation.
Following the Iranian response to the offensive with attacks on Gulf countries hosting US bases and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which triggered a global crisis, the conflict entered a new phase on April 7. An initial 15-day truce was then agreed, later extended on several occasions under different pretexts, but always with the stated objective of seeking a negotiated solution.
In this scenario, the formula of a malleable truce without a clearly defined end has left the crisis in Iran in a sort of strange impasse. The American leader combines warnings and threats with gestures of openness towards Iranian negotiators, with an eye on a pact that would unblock transit through Hormuz in exchange for easing international sanctions.
This policy of constant swings by Washington, coupled with recent episodes of attacks and reprisals, leads José María Peredo, Professor of International Communication and Politics at the European University, to interpret them as part of the pressure game for a negotiation that, in itself, has become integrated into the conflict. "The negotiation opens more or less at each moment and is also supported by specific attacks in the regional framework," he maintains.
"We have entered a longer dynamic, where not only war and attack are part of the conflict but the negotiation itself is part of the conflict," he states, while admitting that it is not clear today whether the talks are progressing or remain blocked.
"It is not known if Israel and the United States maintain a firm alliance or have fallen apart as a consequence of Netanyahu's action. It is not known if Trump's out-of-line comments are decisive or merely serve as a pressure measure," summarizes Peredo, who attributes this climate to the enormous complexity of current international relations.
Despite everything, the parties have sent signals of rapprochement through various proposals to curb hostilities and begin to reopen Hormuz. At the end of May, the United States spoke of a preliminary agreement with Iran to extend the truce for two more months and ensure passage through the strait.
According to that approach, the 60-day ceasefire would be linked to unimpeded transit through Hormuz, meaning without tolls or harassment of merchant ships. In a second phase, nuclear negotiations with Washington would open, focused on discussing the elimination of highly enriched uranium and the Islamic Republic's commitment not to develop a nuclear weapon, an issue that, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Tehran would have already accepted as an initial basis.
In contrast, Iran has put another draft on the table with points more favorable to its interests, such as the management and route of ships crossing Hormuz being in the hands of Iranian authorities in coordination with Oman, which would de facto grant Tehran control of the strategic maritime corridor.
The Iranian document also stated that the United States would have committed to withdrawing its military forces from the periphery of Iran, although the specific scope of this withdrawal remains a subject of discussion.
The talks, in any case, are not limited to the United States and Iran or to Pakistan's mediating role, but have a clearly global dimension. Israel, the Gulf countries, and also China are working behind the scenes to channel a war that has destabilized the Middle East and has significant economic repercussions, especially on the energy market, far beyond the strictly regional sphere.
Even so, Peredo sees the negotiation process as feasible to continue, as there has been no uncontrolled military escalation and the strikes have always remained within certain limits, while contacts have not been interrupted. He points out that, while the United States is primarily seeking to guarantee the opening of Hormuz and reactivate dialogue on the nuclear program, Iran seeks to preserve the survival of the regime and prevent any agreement from being perceived as a capitulation. For its part, Israel, a key player in the conflict, defends its own objectives and would be forced to consider its campaign to weaken Iran and its allies in the region as concluded.
As a backdrop to the conversations is the internal political situation in the United States, with the horizon of November and the midterm elections pressuring Trump to reach some kind of understanding. The North American side "is in a hurry to reach some kind of agreement," explains the professor at the European University, who also attributes a certain improvisation to Trump's approach to the war in Iran.
"It does not respond to a grand strategy," he points out about Washington's moves since it launched the large-scale attack on Iran, taking advantage of a moment of weakness. "It has become complicated because a sufficiently acceptable solution is not found," he indicates, suggesting that the White House was confident that an eventual change of regime in Iran would bring about a modification of its policies on issues such as the nuclear program.
NUCLEAR CONVERSATIONS
In the long run, beyond when the military hostilities end and the crisis in Hormuz is resolved, the next chapter in the complex relationship between the United States and Iran points to a new diplomatic process aimed at curbing the Iranian nuclear program.
In this area, the delegations have exchanged messages about the fate of the nuclear material that Iranian facilities still possess, a priority for Trump, who demands its elimination as proof that Tehran renounces the development of nuclear weapons.
In Peredo's opinion, the war crisis could represent "progress" on the nuclear issue. "Iran has very little to gain by maintaining its current confrontational attitude and much to lose," he explains, emphasizing that reaching a pact on the nuclear issue "would not be a surrender, but a rectification."
And he recalls that in the past, Iranian leaders, from more moderate positions, have explored the path of a nuclear limitation agreement like the one signed in 2015 with the United States during the presidency of Barack Obama, which Donald Trump tore up in his first term in the White House.