ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 12, 2026

Does diplomacy through the use of military force always succeed?

Summary

In a surprising development, US President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Wednesday morning a two-week ceasefire with Iran, contingent upon the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to navigation. Trump’s announcement came shortly before the expiration of the deadline he had set for striking Iranian infrastructure and power plants, threatening to “obliterate Iranian civilization” unless Iran agreed to a deal. Despite this, Washington had previously set April 9th as the deadline for ending the war, a date Israel deemed insufficient at the time, requiring additional weeks. So, has the US strategy of diplomacy under military pressure succeeded in achieving its objectives? Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: “Subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the full, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend attacks on Iran for a period of two weeks.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz “will be possible within two weeks in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, and taking into account technical constraints,” adding that Iran “will cease all its defensive operations if the attacks against it cease.” The Iranian Supreme National Security Council announced its acceptance of the ceasefire and that it would begin negotiations with the United States in Islamabad starting Saturday 11. It appears that Washington must balance the interests of the United States in general, and the future of this administration in particular, with helping Israel achieve its objectives in the region, especially after 41 days of attrition warfare and losses, which have negatively impacted the American economy, Trump’s popularity, and US alliances in the Middle East. In a previous article titled “America and Israel’s War on Iran: A Calculation of Profit and Loss,” I addressed the question of the extent to which the United States and Israel achieved their objectives in launching the war against Iran, a point that aligns with the conclusions reached in the Israeli press yesterday. The newspaper Maariv asserted that Israel and the United States lost this war, with Iran emerging victorious. The paper pointed to the Iranians’ success in imposing an agreement on the United States, an agreement they largely drafted before it was promoted by the Pakistanis and Turks, after the Iranians rejected the agreement proposed by the United States. The Israeli newspaper also emphasized that Iran fired the final shot in this battle and remained steadfast after 41 days of the joint American-Israeli aggression. The newspaper argued that this outcome is further evidenced by an examination of the war’s objectives and principles of engagement in light of the results, which demonstrate that “the Iranian regime emerged with the upper hand.” In a related development, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Wednesday that the Israeli leadership is concerned about a potential agreement between the United States and Iran, fearing it will not take Israeli interests into account. Four issues are causing concern for Israel: the fate of Iran’s nuclear program and enriched uranium; Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and program; the sanctions imposed on Iran, which Israel has strongly advocated for maintaining; and the war with Hezbollah after Pakistan announced that the ceasefire included Lebanon. It appears that Washington must balance the interests of the United States in general, and the future of this administration in particular, with helping Israel achieve its objectives in the region, especially after 41 days of attrition warfare and losses, which have negatively impacted the American economy, Trump’s popularity, and US alliances in the Middle East. On another front, domestic American discontent with the behavior, stances, and policies of US President Donald Trump has reached its peak. According to The Hill, President Trump’s explicit threat to “end civilization” has sparked outrage among Americans, not to mention his other related statements that have angered many lawmakers, politicians, media figures, and the general public. The number of calls from lawmakers for his impeachment has reached historic levels, not to mention the significant rise in public criticism. By Tuesday afternoon, more than 50 Democratic representatives and prominent members of the Senate had called for his removal and the invocation of Article 25 of the Constitution. This article pertains to the removal of the president due to his inability to perform his duties and the appointment of the vice president as acting president. It is one of the most important constitutional mechanisms that can practically lead to the removal of the president or the transfer of his powers. However, it remains far from being practically activated at present because this mechanism requires the approval of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which is difficult to achieve so far. The US and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations Saturday April 11 in Pakistan for a period of two weeks. Pakistan has developed a framework for ending hostilities and shared it with both Iran and the US. This framework includes a two-phase approach: an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement. The US had previously proposed a 15-point plan, which Iran rejected as excessive. The plan included a 30-day ceasefire, the dismantling of Iran’s three main nuclear facilities, a halt to all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, a suspension of its ballistic missile program, a reduction in support for its allies in the region, and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Washington would lift sanctions on Iran and provide assistance in developing its civilian nuclear program. This US plan mirrors a previous proposal presented by the administration and discussed with Iran before the war began on February 28. Iran refuses to negotiate any restrictions on its ballistic missile program, which has been a red line for Tehran in its talks with Washington. Ballistic missiles are considered part of the conventional military arsenal, which all countries have the right to possess and develop within their official military systems. Tehran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. In fact, a fatwa (religious ruling) issued by the former Supreme Leader explicitly forbids the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran has already joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which Israel refuses to join. In accordance with its contractual obligations, Tehran has conceded to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Islamic Republic also had previously signed an agreement with Washington in 2015 to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of US sanctions. President Trump withdrew from this agreement during his first term in office in 2018 and recently started a war with Iran, politically, economically, and militarily. Iran refuses to negotiate any restrictions on its ballistic missile program, which has been a red line for Tehran in its talks with Washington. Ballistic missiles are considered part of the conventional military arsenal, which all countries have the right to possess and develop within their official military systems. In response, Iran presented a ten-point plan, which the United States rejected but accepted as a basis for negotiations. The ten-point Iranian plan stipulates a complete cessation of hostilities on all active fronts, the withdrawal of US forces from all their positions in the region, the lifting of sanctions on Iran, the release of its frozen assets, reconstruction efforts, and the establishment of a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, in which Iran and Oman are considered key players. There is talk of Iran and Oman imposing fees on ships transiting the Strait, with Iran stating that the revenue generated could aid its reconstruction efforts. It was agreed that ending the war would require international guarantees and a UN Security Council resolution. Iran wields considerable political power within the Security Council, comparable to that of the United States, which possesses a veto power, through its allies, China and Russia. The two countries had previously blocked a Security Council resolution that would have enforced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by force. It may be difficult for Washington to return to fighting, given a number of reasons that are particularly important to Trump. The first of these reasons relates to increasing domestic opposition to the war, and to the immediate improvement in the American and global market situation following the ceasefire, after American newspapers acknowledged significant losses, translating into billions of dollars in lost jobs for American citizens and economic inflation. Major American newspapers considered that halting the war spares Washington from escalation and saves the country from further economic losses. This comes despite many of these sources emphasizing that Trump did not achieve a clear diplomatic breakthrough or success in stopping the war, describing it as a temporary and unstable truce. The second reason stems from the welcome given to the ceasefire by Washington’s Western allies, who consider it a moment of relief for the region and the world, and acknowledge the need to reach a comprehensive agreement that prevents the war from erupting again. The Gulf states’ position on the ceasefire was generally positive, considering it an opportunity to avoid escalation and to protect the region’s political and economic stability. The third reason is the position of the Gulf states on stopping the war. They are close allies of Washington and may pay the price for that war because of a unilateral American decision in favor of Israel and to fulfill its declared goals, despite those countries’ firm stance before the war of wanting to avoid it. It may now be difficult for the countries of the region to ignore or avoid reconsidering their security ties with Washington. This recent war has demonstrated that understanding and cooperation among the countries of the region have become a top priority, as they all strive for economic prosperity, which can only be achieved through political stability. Many of the world’s major powers seek peace and economic cooperation, far removed from the atmosphere of war and the exploitation of other nations’ resources, as recent history attests. These developments could be of particular importance to the Palestinian cause and its future, both in Gaza and the West Bank, if the Palestinians can effectively leverage them with their neighbors and allies in the region. Now following the stumbling negotiations between the U S and Iran in Islamabad which started on Saturday 11, the resumption of war looms again in the horizon. It will take courage and compromise from both sides to avoid this gloomy scenario. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyUNRussiaChina

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