MOSCOW (Realist English). Stanislav Ivanov, a Leading Researcher at IMEMO RAS and Candidate of Historical Sciences, specially for Realist English analyses the prospects for resolving the Iranian-American deadlock, Israel’s role, and possible scenarios for the Middle East.
Is there a way out of the Iranian deadlock?
The open armed conflict between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other has once again been paused. Sluggish US-Iranian negotiations are underway in Islamabad, mediated by Pakistani authorities.
The parties are exchanging mutually exclusive memoranda and proposals for a peace agreement draft. From time to time, Trump makes statements that are incomprehensible to the general public, which can only be seen as blackmail or pressure on Tehran.
The Strait of Hormuz remains restricted for shipping; oil and gas prices on the world market, which spiked with the start of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, are still not falling significantly. Separate exchanges of missile and drone strikes between the parties to the conflict continue.
Thus, on May 30, several Americans were wounded when an Iranian missile struck the Ali Al Salem air base in Kuwait; two MQ-9 Reaper drones were also damaged. The US Navy continues to blockade Iran’s coastline and strikes ports, vessels and IRGC boats in the Strait of Hormuz; the Iranian Navy launches retaliatory strikes against US and Israeli vessels.
Is there any chance of a swift end to this conflict, which poses a threat to regional and international security? Judging by the fundamental disagreements in the proposals of the parties, peace in the region will not come soon. One can only expect an extension of the fragile ceasefire and attempts to resume navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but reaching a long‑term peace agreement between the United States and Iran could drag on indefinitely.
What demands is Washington making?
Perhaps the most important one for the Trump administration is to eliminate the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons (halting uranium enrichment, transferring highly enriched uranium stockpiles to another country, and establishing strict IAEA control over all of Iran’s nuclear facilities).
In addition, Washington demands that the new treaty include a clause limiting Iran’s missile program and ending support for Iranian proxy forces in the region (radical Islamist groups: Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad (banned in Russia), Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemen’s Ansar Allah, Iraq’s Hashd al‑Shaabi, Kata’ib Hezbollah).
If for the US administration the main goal is to eliminate the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, then Washington’s ally Israel sees a threat to its national security in the theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which does not recognise the very existence of the “Zionist regime” in the Middle East.
Lessons of the war and Israel’s vulnerability
The new large‑scale armed conflict in the region following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, showed how vulnerable the State of Israel is. The so‑called “axis of resistance” to Israel created by Tehran in recent years in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Yemen gained the ability to shell virtually all of Israel with rockets and drones, while Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles and drones successfully penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system. US military bases and infrastructure facilities in the Gulf states also came under Iranian missile and drone strikes.
Iran held firm: why the calculations failed
As a result of massive US and Israeli strikes, Iran’s defence potential has been significantly weakened; enterprises and nuclear research centres have been damaged. According to expert estimates, restoring Iran’s nuclear programme will take between six months and two years; a number of political and military leaders and nuclear scientists have been physically eliminated. However, the calculations of Jerusalem and Washington for a change of power in Iran proved wrong.
The theocratic regime in Tehran has held firm. The system of government has been preserved. New leaders have replaced the fallen political leaders and military commanders. Iran is demonstrating its ability to continue successfully confronting the United States and Israel militarily; its missile and other weapons arsenals have proved sufficient to continue hostilities.
The hoped‑for uprising or large‑scale protests by the masses against the ruling regime did not materialise after the US and Israeli strikes. Moreover, in the face of external aggression, Iranians have rallied together; the role and importance of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have grown; the IRGC leadership now plays a decisive role in important political decisions.
Despite the country’s difficult financial and economic situation, Iran’s margin of safety is far from exhausted. Relying on internal reserves in the development of science, industry and agriculture, as well as on traditional trade and economic relations with China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Russia and other countries, Tehran is overcoming the continuing harsh sanctions regime imposed by the United States and its Western allies.
Under the current circumstances, continuing the armed conflict between the United States and Israel against Iran and launching new strikes on its territory looks increasingly futile.
What next?
It is difficult to predict the further course of events around Iran. One should not deny the possibility of a new treaty between the United States and Iran along the lines of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA): both sides to the conflict recognise the need to overcome the negotiating impasse.
At the same time, each side would like to “save face” and avoid looking like a capitulator. While the Iranian leadership is seeking to strengthen its position at home and enhance its authority in the Islamic world, Washington is forced to take into account the national interests of its ally, Israel.
It is not excluded that the upcoming November 2026 midterm elections to the US Congress may push Trump towards a more active search for a compromise with Tehran.
Whether the parties to the conflict can overcome the existing objective and subjective difficulties and contradictions – time will tell. For now, the state of “neither war nor peace” in the Middle East is dragging on indefinitely. As a result, the world is teetering on the brink of a new financial and economic crisis and is trying to find alternative sources of hydrocarbons to the Persian Gulf.
