The ceasefire remains precarious due to contradictory victory claims and ongoing regional violence. Success depends on the U.S. differentiating core “must-haves”—such as HEU removal and maritime access—from unrealistic demands for Iranian disarmament. Professionalizing the negotiating team is the only viable path to de-escalating the economic and military crisis.
President Donald Trump needs to choose a new, experienced special envoy to manage negotiations with Iran.
President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire with Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday evening left many analysts with more questions than answers, as it remains unclear whether much of substance has actually been agreed upon. Meanwhile, the violence across the region has continued unabated, with heavy Israeli bombing around Beirut, Iranian missile strikes against several Gulf states, and no indications of any significant resumption of stranded tankers departing through the strait.
While this war was ill-advised from the beginning, the issues between the United States and Iran are too important just to drop entirely and walk away. Despite his disdain for the establishment, what Trump needs at this point is a seasoned Washington “graybeard” to develop a rational negotiating strategy and salvage as good a result as possible from this episode before talks in Islamabad this weekend. Amateur hour is over.
It is still highly unclear what was agreed upon on Tuesday. Trump’s posting said, “We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated [sic].”
The statement from Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Iran’s 10-point proposal had been accepted as a “basis for negotiations,” similar to Trump’s, but said they were “considering the request by the US for negotiations” on the US 15-point proposal. The two documents couldn’t be more different, and almost all of Iran’s 10 points would have been unacceptable to the United States a few days ago. It also does not deal with the nuclear or missile issues at all.
Another statement from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) strongly suggested that the United States had acquiesced on most points of disagreement, claiming that the “Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all outward threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian nation” and asserting that the upcoming talks in Islamabad would be “based solely on these principles.” The tone of the SNSC statement is that of a victor scolding the vanquished after their “surrender on the battlefield.”
The White House seems not to have the same understanding of what was agreed. President Trump reacted angrily on Truth Social to CNN’s coverage of the SNSC statement, calling it “fake news.” However, CNN received it from an Iranian government source, and it is still posted on official Iranian social media accounts. US officials have also been telling Israel that the United States has not abandoned its positions on the nuclear or missile issues.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also said in a speech on Wednesday that Hezbollah was not included in the ceasefire, contradicting Iran’s statements. All that is clear at this point is that the main substantive points of disagreement remain outstanding and, at best, have been papered over to get President Trump around his self-imposed deadline last night.
The only parties to implement the ceasefire are the United States and Israel, which say they have halted strikes against Iran. However, Iran has claimed itsLavan refinery was hit on Wednesday. Israeli bombing in Beirut continues, as they do not see that as part of the agreement. Iranian missiles and drones have also hit targets in several of the Gulf Arab states. Iran has already said it will not allow tankers through the Strait of Hormuz due to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon. At this point, the ceasefire seems very fragile, at best.
The Trump administration’s shambolic handling of the Iran file has brought us to this state, but Trump’s retreat from escalation last night does show a positive evolution in his thinking. Trump was taking a lot of criticism from Americans and others who were appalled at what seemed to be a retreat from the principles of the Geneva Conventions agreed after World War II, and possible war crimes if the United States indiscriminately targeted electric power and water infrastructure. More broadly, though, Trump seems to have realized that Iran called his bluff and felt that its ability to strangle the world economy via the Strait of Hormuz trumped the threat of being bombed “back to the Stone Age.”
Now that Trump acknowledges that Iran has some cards to play and will not simply surrender all of its war aims, it may be possible to think more seriously about negotiations. The Iranians and the United States have the means to do a lot of harm to each other. They also have a hierarchy of priorities among their war aims and the demands they make of each other. There are some things the United States and Iran must have, and others that can be traded away. Obviously, from the US standpoint, our main interest is preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Hence, limitations on enrichment and the removal of the 60 percent highly enriched uranium (HEU) are core objectives. It would be irresponsible for us to walk away from that issue.
The freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, including the universal right of passage through international straits acknowledged in international law and the Law of the Sea Treaty, is also a key US interest. On the other hand, while it would be good for our regional partners to have Iran completely disarmed, it is highly unlikely that Iran would ever agree to forego its missile development programs. There are some desirable things the United States cannot impose, given Iran’s leverage via military control of the strait. The United States should have thought this through when the incoming administration formulated its policy approach, informed by an understanding of how Iran’s military capabilities have evolved in recent years. Their ability to effectively close the strait did not come as a surprise to those of us familiar with it and who have discussed it as an operational risk with shipping companies.
Even if this ceasefire ultimately does not hold, if Trump is starting to think in these terms, progress is still possible. But Trump needs to accept the urgency of the situation and that the nation cannot afford to have amateur officials learn the subject matter on the job. Trump urgently needs to seek out a Republican “graybeard”—a former senior official who understands both the nuclear issue and the interests of both our friends and our foes in the Middle East. Witkoff and Kushner may be wealthy peers of Trump and his close friends and family, but neither has the expertise to manage this crisis, especially when they are also engaged in seeking an end to the war in Ukraine.
Once the president recruits this person, he could sit down with his foreign policy team and the new special envoy and work out the division between our “must haves” and our “nice to haves,” realizing that Iran has significant leverage via the strait, and that militarily reversing that would be prohibitively costly in terms of blood, treasure, and political capital. To have a coherent strategy, the White House needs someone with the policy chops to put one together.
Continuing to wing it with phony ultimatums, threats of war crimes, abrupt cave-ins, and crazy options like seizing and holding the coast of Iran with ground forces is only going to bring the United States to more conflict and more economic harm. Trump needs to delegate this to someone qualified to develop a coherent strategy and implement it.