DUBAI (Realist English). The negotiation process between the United States and Iran has split into two opposing realities: Washington speaks of an imminent deal, while Tehran ties any agreement to an end to the war on the Lebanese front and threatens new escalation in strategic straits.
“War Is Over” vs. “Priority to End the War”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, commenting on the progress of indirect consultations, announced the imminent signing of a US-Iranian memorandum of understanding. According to him, “the war is over,” and reports of a suspension of negotiations are “false and misleading.”
The administration of Donald Trump insists that the diplomatic channel is operating normally, despite mutual military strikes in recent days.
However, official Tehran is conveying a fundamentally different message. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei stated:
“We know when it is necessary to act on nuclear issues. At this stage, our priority is to end the war.”
These words mean that for Iran, the nuclear file has taken a back seat — the main demand has become an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza.
Ghalibaf’s Ultimatum: Strait of Hormuz and “Other Fronts”
An even tougher position was taken by the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, who is considered close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He accused the US of violating the “spirit of the truce” due to its support for the Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon.
Ghalibaf threatened Washington with two steps:
- Complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — the main artery through which about 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass.
- “Activation of other fronts,” including the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off the coast of Yemen, where Iran-allied Houthis operate.
“If the US does not stop the Israeli killing machine in Beirut and southern Lebanon, we will act asymmetrically,” Ghalibaf said, making it clear that a retaliatory strike could be directed not only at US bases in the region but also at global trade.
What Lies Behind the Gap in Rhetoric?
The discrepancy between Rubio’s optimism and Tehran’s ultimatums can be explained by two factors.
First, Iran links the negotiations with the US to the war in Lebanon, demanding a ceasefire as a precondition.
Second, within the US administration, there is a growing understanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deliberately sabotaging diplomacy, seeking to drag the US into a direct confrontation with Iran.
The Beirut Knot: Why Negotiations Have Reached an Impasse
The “red line” for Iran has been Israel’s actions on the Lebanese front. Iran insists that Israel must immediately cease fire in Lebanon and Gaza before an agreement between Tehran and Washington can be signed. Netanyahu is leading troops deeper into southern Lebanon, capturing the strategically important Beaufort Castle, a powerful symbol of Israel’s advance.
The situation is two-pronged: the US is pressuring its ally. Trump personally contacted Netanyahu and demanded he “cool it” in Beirut to preserve the negotiation process with Iran. Under this pressure, Netanyahu has temporarily refrained from immediate massive strikes on the Lebanese capital, although his rhetoric remains belligerent.
“Self-Defense” vs. “New Fronts”
The catalyst for a new round of tensions was an incident in the airspace over the Persian Gulf. Iranian air defense shot down a US MQ-1 Predator drone which, according to Tehran, violated its airspace, while the Pentagon claims the drone was operating over international waters.
Washington responded with strikes on drone control system positions on Qeshm Island and in the Goruk area, calling them “self-defense strikes.” In response, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) attacked targets linked to the US military.
Airbases and military facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, where US forces are based, came under attack. The US claims most of these attacks were repelled or missed their targets. This escalation has already led to oil prices jumping more than 1%.
