US-Iran talks face a perceptual divide: Iran seeks limited ceasefires; Washington wants a comprehensive nuclear victory. Trump’s “Project Freedom” risks escalation. Likely outcome: prolonged economic pressure and limited strikes, not a full deal. Mutual costs deter all-out war.
Iran-US Negotiations are currently at a critical crossroads following the fragile April 2026 ceasefire. As direct talks in Islamabad stall, the world watches the Iran-US Negotiations for signs of either a diplomatic breakthrough or a return to total war. The failure to secure a common framework suggests that Iran-US Negotiations are hindered by deep-seated mistrust and diverging strategic goals. Ultimately, the success of these Iran-US Negotiations will determine the stability of global energy markets.
The Perceptual Divide in Iran-US Negotiations
Introduction
The declaration of a two-week ceasefire on 8 April 2026 brought a temporary end to direct military hostilities between Iran and the United States after more than five weeks of intense confrontation.
Mediated by Pakistan, the truce was later extended unilaterally by US President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the first round of direct talks held in Islamabad failed to deliver any tangible outcomes, leaving the divide between the two sides’ positions as wide as ever.
Following the collapse of the second round of negotiations in Islamabad and a return to indirect communications, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi travelled to Moscow for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, in Washington, Trump convened his national security team to assess Tehran’s latest proposal. In recent days, there have also been reports of indirect exchanges of draft agreement proposals between Iran and the United States.
These developments are occurring against the backdrop of an ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports and Iran’s continued refusal to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. On 4 May, the United States launched Operation “Project Freedom”, aiming to accelerate maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, following a brief clash, the operation was suspended at the request of several mediating countries.
More than four weeks have passed since the ceasefire was announced, and the future of the talks remains uncertain. No agreement has been reached, and only reports of the latest negotiation proposals have emerged. Both sides continue to insist on their initial positions, while the Strait of Hormuz crisis has entered a new phase marked by escalating military actions. In this context, what are the possible scenarios ahead?
Diverging Perceptions in Iran–US Talks The failure of Iran and the United States to establish a common framework for sustaining negotiations and producing concrete results stems from a profound perceptual divide regarding the nature of the recent war and its implications. This divergence has not only complicated diplomatic efforts but also serves as a critical variable in analysing and forecasting future scenarios.
Iranian officials believe that achieving a robust and lasting comprehensive agreement under current conditions faces deep structural and fundamental obstacles.
This assessment results from more than three decades of direct and indirect interactions between Tehran and Washington across various diplomatic formats. In particular, the Israeli attacks of June 2025 — which occurred during ongoing diplomatic consultations between Tehran and Washington — reinforced Iranian perceptions that the United States is increasingly unreliable and less committed than in the past.
Despite the deep-rooted scepticism, Tehran’s approach to diplomatic engagement is not entirely closed. Iranian decision-makers believe that more limited arrangements — such as a durable ceasefire and clear American commitments to refrain from future military action, in exchange for reciprocal concessions — are both feasible and practical. They also view such arrangements as a test of the other side’s willingness to move toward broader and more enduring agreements, a process they believe will inevitably require time.
Trump’s Shift and Iran-US Negotiations
Aside from the history of unsuccessful interactions between the two countries, there are now clear indications of a broader rethinking in the United States’ approach to its foreign relations with a range of international actors. This trend has become particularly pronounced during Donald Trump’s presidency and is reflected in a simultaneous redefinition of political and economic relationships with multiple countries and alliances.
Within this framework, a series of actions and tensions — including high-risk interventions in Latin America, strategic disagreements over the Ukraine file, the intensification of tariff wars, unilateral withdrawal from multilateral economic agreements, economic confrontation with China, and growing fissures within NATO — point to a broader shift in the behavioural logic of Washington’s foreign policy.
Furthermore, recent verbal tensions between Trump and several European leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the President of France, cannot be explained solely as personal disputes; rather, they indicate deeper structural instability in the strategic orientation of US foreign policy. Overall, it appears that Washington has concluded that, in an era of transition in the international order, deviating from certain established norms and rules is an inevitable cost of preserving its strategic primacy — an approach that can be conceptualised as a form of “norm-breaking” in American foreign policy.
Whether this unstable posture reflects dysfunction and structural weaknesses within the US political system or the deliberate adoption of a strategy inspired by the “madman theory”, the practical implications for Iran remain largely the same.
In this context, the likelihood of a comprehensive and long-term agreement between Iran and the United States remains low. This assessment is reinforced by Washington’s past record of abandoning commitments or taking unilateral actions against Tehran, which carries significant weight in Iranian decision-makers’ strategic calculations. Moreover, America’s demonstrated difficulties in maintaining stable relations with its traditional allies are viewed as a further warning signal, strengthening the perception that US adherence to any comprehensive long-term agreement with Iran would remain highly uncertain.
Israel’s Role in the Negotiations In addition to abovementioned factors, Israel’s role as a destabilising regional variable is of particular importance. Israel, with its unpredictable and tension-driven pattern of behaviour, has frequently acted to disrupt existing balances. Indeed, its very survival appears to be predicated on the perpetuation of permanent tension in the region. Consequently, the extent to which Israel would adhere to any potential agreement between Iran and the United States is highly ambiguous.
Nuclear Demands in Iran-US Negotiations
In contrast, the United States is seeking a comprehensive agreement that can be presented as a clear “achievement” both domestically and internationally. While a range of military and security issues are addressed within this framework, the primary focus remains on restricting Iran’s nuclear programme. This includes imposing limitations on nuclear energy infrastructure, halting or significantly reducing enrichment capabilities, and transferring or reducing stockpiles of enriched uranium. In Washington’s discourse, these elements are concrete indicators of a presentable victory.
The United States views the attainment of this victory as an inherent right and the natural outcome of its previous military operations against Iran —Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury — which inflicted serious damage on Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure. Consequently, America is entering the negotiations from a position of confidence, with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claiming, “…we maintain the upper hand…. .
However, members of the US delegation in the negotiations possess limited technical familiarity with the details. Thus, their role appears to be focused more on securing the final outcome than on crafting a sustainable framework for agreement. This situation may very well be linked to Washington’s previous miscalculations.
American Miscalculations and Post-War Perspectives in Washington Influenced by Israeli assessments, the White House had anticipated that a military assault on Tehran would proceed rapidly and lead to a swift surrender through the complete elimination of the leadership circle and key figures.
However, developments on the ground have shown that, despite the damage sustained, Iran had prepared itself for scenarios of prolonged conflict. Should tensions escalate further, the consequences could extend beyond the regional level and acquire broader international economic dimensions — a situation that, in security literature, can be described as mutually costly for all parties involved.
These earlier miscalculations regarding the war’s outcome have placed the United States in a dilemma between continuing the conflict or suspending it in favour of intensified economic pressure. At present, two distinct viewpoints are contending in Washington.
The first perspective views the continuation of hostilities as an unavoidable necessity. Although Iran’s defence industries have sustained significant damage, Tehran still retains a substantial portion of its ballistic missile and suicide drone capabilities.
Its cruise missile stockpiles also remain largely intact, while its fleet of fast-attack vessels continues to maintain operational dominance over the Strait of Hormuz — a factor that could ultimately reinforce Iran’s regional influence. According to this view, Iran must incur sufficient economic and infrastructural damage such that, even if it preserves its military capabilities, it would no longer possess the will to use them.
The second perspective, however, considers the suspension of the current situation, combined with increased economic pressure, to be the more appropriate course of action. It argues that the United States is becoming increasingly reluctant to prolong the conflict. A renewed large-scale military confrontation would place significant strain on regional anti-ballistic missile defence systems, including the strategic missiles used in the sea-based Aegis Combat System, as well as THAAD and Arrow 2/3/4 interceptors.
At the same time, air defence stockpiles deployed across Arab countries are already severely depleted. As long as the United States is unable to effectively reduce the pace of Iran’s missile and drone launches, the success rate of Iranian strikes is likely to increase over time as regional defensive capacities come under growing pressure. This would not only raise financial costs but could also result in higher casualties.
At the same time, the United States faces mounting challenges in sustaining its own long-range strike capabilities, particularly given its global strategic commitments. Even with accelerated production and new procurement contracts, restoring full operational capacity would require considerable time.
Blockades and Leverage in Iran-US Negotiations
Between these two approaches, the United States’ short-term strategy appears to favour the continuation — and possible intensification — of economic pressure on Iran while avoiding the heavy costs associated with direct large-scale military confrontation. At the same time, Washington has maintained a substantial military presence in the region to preserve deterrence and sustain operational readiness.
This deployment is unprecedented in scale, comprising three carrier strike groups led by the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77), alongside two amphibious ready groups centred around the USS Boxer (LHD-4) and USS Tripoli (LHA-7). The force posture also includes hundreds of fighter aircraft and aerial refuelling planes, bringing the total number of deployed US personnel to more than 60,000.
However, the departure of the Ford carrier strike group from the Middle East earlier this month may signal an adjustment in Washington’s military posture.
Within this framework, the naval blockade and the restriction of Iranian oil exports constitute a central pillar of the strategy. This approach has both reduced Iranian government revenues and intensified economic pressure on the domestic population, while also severely limiting Tehran’s financial flexibility to repair the extensive damage sustained earlier.
If prolonged, this situation could further damage Iran’s oil field infrastructure, leading to deeper structural weakening of the economy in the long term. Nevertheless, Iran’s response to this pressure remains uncertain. So far, Tehran’s proposals to lift the naval blockade in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz have not been accepted. Although the naval blockade imposes additional strain on Iran, the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz functions as a double-edged sword for the global economy. Reduced access to natural gas, jet fuel shortages and disruptions in the supply of chemical fertilisers are among the direct consequences of this situation.
While the United States, as one of the world’s largest oil producers, seeks to downplay its vulnerability to such disruptions, sustained interference in global energy supply chains can nonetheless affect key macroeconomic variables — particularly fuel prices. This comes at a time when Trump is facing mounting pressure from allies, especially Asian countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and European nations reliant on natural gas imports. Under these conditions, the global energy market is experiencing a significant daily shortfall in oil supply.
It is estimated that in April, oil production in the Gulf states declined by as much as 14.5 million barrels per day due to precautionary measures and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This situation has prevented a downward correction in prices and has instead contributed to the persistence of elevated energy prices in international markets.
Operation Project Freedom vs. Iran-US Negotiations
The United States is intensifying its pressure within this framework. According to available reports, Trump has grown frustrated with the current “no deal, no war” dynamic and has initiated an operation aimed at altering the status quo — an approach that could ultimately lead to renewed conflict. His objective is to increase pressure in order to force a negotiated agreement.
On 3 May, a proposal was presented under which US destroyers would forcefully transit the Strait of Hormuz to reopen it. However, at the last moment, Trump opted for a more cautious approach, later labelled “Project Freedom”. Announced on 4 May, this approach involves the US Navy assisting both US-flagged and foreign vessels in transiting the strait, without a formal escort mandate for commercial shipping. US destroyers are to remain in proximity to support the operation.
In the initial phase, at least two US destroyers entered the Gulf after passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This move reportedly prompted warning shots from Iranian coastal defence forces, as reported by the Iranian Artesh Navy. Subsequently, the vessel HMM NAMU, which had been anchored at Umm Al Quwain Port in the United Arab Emirates, was struck by a projectile — an incident widely interpreted as a warning signal from Iran.
Part of the United States’ effort to achieve a tangible outcome in its military campaign against Iran is also linked to the upcoming meeting between the U.S. President and the President of China, for which preparations are currently underway. Recent reporting indicates that the Iran conflict and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have become central issues ahead of the summit, given their direct impact on China’s energy security and broader global markets.
According to a plausible assessment, Washington may seek to leverage pressure on Iran in parallel with its broader geopolitical objectives vis-à-vis China, particularly through influence over global energy flows.
At the same time, these actions can also be interpreted as an attempt by the United States to reassure key allies affected by instability in the Strait of Hormuz. These include Asian importers of Middle Eastern oil such as Japan and South Korea, Western European countries dependent on energy imports, and certain Gulf Arab states that have experienced disruptions in maritime trade.
Meanwhile, the Israeli strategic camp continues to advocate for a resumption of intensified military operations, viewing further escalation as increasingly likely.
A critical point is that, within the framework of the current operation, US forces are authorised to engage immediate threats, including Iranian fast-attack craft and missile positions — an approach that could ultimately risk triggering a renewed escalation of hostilities.
Future Scenarios for Iran-US Negotiations
The United States is expected to maintain a high-intensity naval blockade for at least another two to three weeks. This period—leading up to Trump’s upcoming arrival in Beijing—will bring Washington’s allies closer to the threshold of tolerance, while the crisis over Iran’s oil storage capacity is also expected to reach its peak. As noted, rising economic pressure on Tehran, combined with the possibility of domestic livelihood unrest, could generate new leverage for the United States in mid-term negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from initiating a prolonged war of attrition.
At this stage, and as an extension of current measures, limited military operations are also foreseeable—including strikes on smaller naval ports, bombardment of Iranian islands in the Gulf, and targeting of Iranian fast-attack craft. The lifting of the naval blockade would likely depend either on Tehran making significant concessions or on Iran activating additional leverage mechanisms that have not yet been employed.
In the current situation, Iran is still assessed to possess three primary levers: closing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, disrupting oil transfer routes from the Arabian Peninsula, and announcing a naval blockade of the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.Each of these actions carries distinct strategic implications and would require separate analysis.
In such a scenario, the upcoming FIFA World Cup, beginning on 11 June, along with the global economy’s growing demand for energy—particularly in the aviation sector—could temporarily ease the intensity of the crisis. Nevertheless, once the event concludes in mid-summer, a “window of opportunity” may emerge for the potential resumption of hostilities — a period that would allow sufficient time for conducting surprise operations while remaining sufficiently distant from the midterm elections in August.
Ultimately, the United States is wary of becoming entangled in another protracted war and is therefore proceeding with caution. In contrast, Tehran has demonstrated a willingness to act as a high-risk actor through unpredictable behaviour and maintain pressure through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Washington is attempting to compel Iran to accept demanding terms through economic pressure tools—particularly as the ongoing naval blockade risks generating shortages of essential goods, rising import costs for fuel (especially gasoline) and, ultimately, domestic social unrest.
The overall assessment suggests that, although the United States is banking on the internal weakening of Iran’s political structure and pursuing a strategy of “maximum pressure combined with limited strikes”, Iran continues to retain meaningful instruments of leverage. Consequently, the outbreak of a new round of large-scale conflict would likely constitute a lose-lose outcome for all parties involved, placing both sides in a mutually costly position. In light of this reality, and given the involvement of mediating countries, the likelihood of a limited agreement appears significantly higher than that of a comprehensive one.