By Uzma Ehtasham
The confrontation between the United States and Iran shows little sign of ending. Both sides have already paid a heavy price in lives, resources and economic disruption, while the wider world has watched the conflict with growing alarm. There are now compelling reasons for Washington and Tehran to recognize that the fighting must end. Yet the most difficult obstacle to peace is often not the absence of a diplomatic route, but the presence of interests that have learned to thrive on confrontation. The Middle East has too often been trapped in precisely this cycle. Every escalation creates new political calculations, new security interests and new incentives for those who believe that instability serves their purposes.
The influence of Israel and its supporters on American Middle East policy remains one of the most contentious issues in the region, and any credible attempt at peace will have to acknowledge the political forces that stand to lose from de-escalation. Peace, however, cannot be held hostage to the interests of any state, faction or ideological camp. Iran has now presented six conditions for the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad Bagher Zolqadr, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran wanted guarantees that Iran would never again be threatened, regardless of the language used.
It also demanded a permanent end to what it describes as war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq; an end to the naval blockade and the withdrawal of US forces from Iran’s vicinity; full compensation for wartime losses; the removal of what Tehran considers unjust and unlawful sanctions; and the unconditional release of Iranian assets that have been frozen or withheld. Zolqadr’s warning that Hormuz would remain closed unless Washington changed its approach illustrates the central problem. The strait is not merely a strategic waterway for Iran and the United States.
Oil and gas prices, shipping costs, inflation and the security of global supply chains are all vulnerable to developments in the Gulf. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has likewise accused Washington of failing to honor guidelines jointly prepared by Iran and Oman under a memorandum of understanding. Tehran, he says, was compelled to respond to those violations. His insistence that Iran will proceed with dignity and pride reflects the deep distrust that has come to define the relationship.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has been equally categorical. Tehran will not enter direct negotiations with Washington while, in its view, the interim agreement reached in June continues to be violated. There may be messages passing between the two sides through intermediaries, but direct talks remain suspended. Iran’s position is that Washington must first address what Tehran regards as breaches of the memorandum.
Washington, meanwhile, is signaling pressure rather than retreat. US Vice-President JD Vance has said the administration will continue to pressure Iran while working towards a mechanism that would permit the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. He has said Iran has indicated that it would allow the maximum possible flow of oil through the waterway, but that Washington does not trust the assurance. The US position also includes a demand that Iran refrain from firing on commercial vessels, with Washington hoping that negotiations could eventually restore Gulf energy shipments to their pre-war levels.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore. Both capitals speak of de-escalation, negotiations and an eventual return to normality, yet neither appears prepared to make the concessions that genuine diplomacy requires. Each continues to frame the other as the principal obstacle to peace. That may serve domestic political purposes, but it does little to create the conditions for a settlement. Reports that Donald Trump has considered ending the war without securing a new nuclear agreement further underline the uncertainty surrounding Washington’s strategy.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the US president had been consulting advisers about ending the conflict without a nuclear deal and had considered reopening Hormuz as a basis for declaring victory. Iran’s uncompromising conditions have complicated that calculation. At the same time, the Pentagon’s reported direction to US defence companies to accelerate the production and delivery of weapons and ammunition sends a contradictory signal. If Washington is genuinely preparing for diplomacy and de-escalation, expanding military production may be understandable as a contingency measure, but it also risks reinforcing the perception that the United States remains prepared for a prolonged confrontation.
The international community has a direct interest in ensuring that commercial shipping remains safe and that the Gulf does not become the scene of another prolonged conflict with consequences extending across continents. Washington and Tehran therefore need to move beyond indirect messages and maximalist demands towards direct diplomacy. Neither side is required to abandon its fundamental security concerns, but both must recognize that no sustainable settlement can be built without reciprocal concessions. Iran must address legitimate concerns over regional security and commercial shipping, while the United States must recognize that coercion alone cannot produce lasting political compliance.
The same responsibility extends to their regional partners and proxies. Any diplomatic process will remain vulnerable if armed groups aligned with either side are permitted to undermine agreements through attacks or retaliation. The parties to the conflict must exercise greater control over those acting in their name rather than allowing proxy confrontation to become a permanent substitute for diplomacy. The world has seen enough of the consequences of wars that begin with limited objectives but develop their own momentum. The Iran-US confrontation is already damaging regional stability and threatening the global economy.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
Iran #UnitedStates #IranUSRelations #IranUSConflict #StraitOfHormuz #MiddleEast #MiddleEastCrisis #Diplomacy #Peace #Deescalation #RegionalSecurity #GlobalSecurity #InternationalRelations #ForeignPolicy #Geopolitics #OilPrices #GlobalEconomy #ShippingSecurity #GulfSecurity #NuclearDeal #Sanctions #Tehran #Washington #UzmaEhtasham #MetroMorning
