ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

Is Iran’s negotiating position stronger than when US-Israeli war started?

Summary

Is Iran’s negotiating position stronger than when US-Israeli war started? Tehran believes so, and will seek to extract concessions that the US and Gulf nations can’t agree to, analysts caution. United States President Donald Trump has said that Washington is engaged in “productive” talks with Iran. Publicly, Iranian officials have rejected Trump’s claims, calling them fake news designed to ease oil prices. Behind the scenes, Egypt, Turkiye and Pakistan have established an indirect channel of communication between American and Iranian officials in the past few days, two senior diplomatic sources in the region told Al Jazeera. Still, regardless of the small window for diplomacy that may have emerged, experts remain sceptical over the prospects for a ceasefire as the positions of the warring parties remain far apart. The Iranian leadership’s stance on what concessions to extract from the US appears to have hardened since the start of the war on February 28, when the US and Israel attacked Iran, killing its then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US and Israel insist that their nonstop attacks since then have significantly “degraded” Iran’s military capabilities – the Pentagon says 90 percent of Iran’s missile capacity has been wiped out. But Iran has shown it can still fire when it wants, and with precision. In the Strait of Hormuz – a waterway through which a fifth of global oil exports pass – hundreds of vessels remain paralysed. And across the region, Iran has adopted an “eye for an eye” policy to re-establish deterrence and make sure that any threat is followed by action. Just last week, Iranian forces hit Qatar’s main gas site – wiping out 17 percent of its export capacity – immediately after an Israeli attack on Iran’s South Pars field. After an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear power plant, two Iranian ballistic missiles pierced through Israel’s defence systems, hitting the southern cities of Arad and Dimona, wounding more than 180 people. Iran’s aim now, say experts, is not merely a ceasefire but a post-war order that restores deterrence and secures long-term economic and security guarantees. Iran’s new red lines Iran’s political and military officials have said in recent days that they want payment repatriations, firm guarantees that Iran won’t be attacked again and a new regulatory framework for passage in the Strait of Hormuz. Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, says Tehran would seek to end the war on its own terms while extracting sanctions relief, reparations for damage and economic leverage. “This chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz is now giving them ideas – ‘maybe we can charge passage fees like some other places in the world’ – there are those discussions in Iran,” Mortazavi said. Iran is unlikely to forfeit that leverage without major concessions, analysts say. That is especially so, given how Iran feels the war has helped it win some economic relief that it didn’t get through diplomacy. On Friday, the Trump administration temporarily waived sanctions on the purchase of 140 million barrels of Iranian oil at sea in an attempt to ease oil prices. What does the US want? One of the various reasons the US president listed to justify launching a war on Iran was to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear bomb – despite having claimed to have obliterated Tehran’s nuclear programme during the 12-day war last year. On Monday, Trump said he still wants Iran to give up the more than 400kg of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade. Iranian officials say the stock is buried under the rubble of one of the nuclear sites struck by the US. In the past, the US also wanted Tehran to dismantle its ballistic missile programme and stop supporting armed groups across the region. According to one of two sources who spoke to Al Jazeera, Washington has now proposed that Iran keep 1,000 medium-range missiles in its arsenal, a change compared with previous demands. But any diplomatic breakthrough would have to emerge amid a complete lack of trust from the Iranian side. Trump bombed Iran twice while his envoys were negotiating with Iranian representatives – in June 2025 and February 2026 – and he has repeatedly said that his goal is regime change. Questions over Iran’s negotiators It is also unclear who in Iran would be in charge of any negotiations – direct or indirect – with Washington, after US and Israeli attacks killed prominent members of the Iranian leadership, including Ali Larijani, who was the interlocutor to many mediators from other countries. On Tuesday, Iran appointed Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Zolghadr is a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander and the secretary of the advisory Expediency Council since 2023. His appointment suggests that any Iranian negotiations are going to be more tightly aligned with the IRGC ‘s threat perception and priorities, said Babak Vahdad, a political analyst focusing on Iran. “Put bluntly: this looks less like a system preparing for compromise, and more like one preparing to manage prolonged confrontation,” Vahdad said. Some experts have argued that Trump’s postponement of attacks on Iran earlier this week was aimed at calming down oil prices, which have jumped by more than 50 percent since the start of the war, while waiting for thousands of US Marines to reach the Middle East. Last week, 2,500 Marines, along with an amphibious assault ship, were deployed to the region. In mid -March, the Trump administration had also ordered the deployment of the Japan-based USS Tripoli, another amphibious assault ship believed to have on board thousands more Marines. Trump has remained vague on whether he plans to send troops on the ground, but he has mulled the idea of seizing Iran’s Kharg island in the north of the Gulf, from which 90 percent of Iranian oil is exported. “Diplomatic talk is one thing; what I see on the ground is something else,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of political science from the United Arab Emirates. Gulf states, as well as other international partners, would never accept a scenario where Iran retains control of the Strait of Hormuz – something that would give Iranians the upper hand on Gulf energy exports for the foreseeable future, said Abdulla. And since it’s unlikely that Tehran will drop its leverage over the strait, there are few diplomatic solutions left: “It’s the duty of the international community to take it back, and there is one way to do it, the military way,” said Abdulla.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran