Iran-USA: a prolonged standoff with unpredictable consequences

The world is once again holding its breath as it awaits President Donald Trump's decision in response to Iran's counter-proposal (which he deemed 'totally unacceptable' on Sunday) to his conditions for resuming negotiations over an agreement aimed at bringing the war to a lasting end.

Through its Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei, Iran stated Monday that it had merely 'demanded an end to hostilities across the region and the unfreezing of its assets.'

Ismail Baghaei, responding to Donald Trump's rejection of Iran's response, claimed that 'the only thing required is Iran's legitimate rights'—namely, 'an end to the war in the region, including Lebanon, the lifting of the American blockade on Iranian ports, and the release of Iranian assets that have been unjustly frozen for years.'

He made no mention of the nuclear issue, addressing it only through the lens of national sovereignty without responding to Washington's core demands.

In other words, Iran's counter-proposal sidesteps American conditions and reflects a willingness to seize the diplomatic initiative.

What stands out in this latest round of the standoff between the Islamic Republic and the United States is less Tehran's rejection of American demands than the defiant, even provocative tone marking Iran's 'no.'

The clerical regime's response to Donald Trump was almost an 'over my dead body'—in other words, 'not on my watch.' The problem is that Donald Trump may very well take them at their word. Or perhaps not.

Because the stakes and issues tied to this standoff, which has persisted since the ceasefire between the two belligerents took effect on April 8, 2026, are enormous.

Concretely, both the United States and Iran find themselves in difficult straits. First, because this war, all things considered, weighs heavily on their respective populations.

Second, because its effects extend globally, as evidenced by the fresh spike in oil prices when markets opened Monday.

The Islamic Republic, literally fighting for its survival against the Washington-Tel Aviv duo determined to strip it of its nuclear program and neutralize its ballistic capabilities, believes it can stand up to Donald Trump and potentially bend him to its will by continuing to bet on the passage of time.

Following the elimination of several high-ranking commanders in the US-Israeli airstrikes, divisions emerged within the Iranian regime between a moderate camp, favoring an agreement with Washington to salvage what was essential, and a hardliner led by the Revolutionary Guard, fiercely opposed to any concessions. It is likely that this latter camp is behind the Iranian counter-proposal.

Tehran is going all-in, capitalizing on a dual domestic and international context unfavorable to the American president.

In short, the Islamic Republic is primarily banking on political polarization in the United States, particularly the internal pressure Trump faces to withdraw from a war carrying both economic and political costs.

The impact on the American economy has quickly translated, as we know, into severe inflation. As for the political cost, midterm elections are expected to be a major factor.

On the international front, Iran is primarily counting on the following factors: America's failure to rally Europeans to the war, resulting in sharp tensions between Washington and NATO; the defensive neutrality of Arab nations; pressures stemming from maritime traffic disruptions for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a major pressure tool in Iranian hands despite the American blockade on Iranian ports.

We must also not overlook the strategic significance of Donald Trump's visit to Beijing Wednesday, where Iran's ally is located, and its potential implications for the Iran-U.S. conflict.

All of the above may explain the hardened tone Tehran adopted after submitting its response to the Pakistani mediator Sunday.

Barely had it been delivered when Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei released a statement conveying a clear message to Americans about what he presented as Iranian invincibility: 'Throughout history, Iranians have stood not only against isolated invaders, but also against great powers and formidable legions, and they have always emerged with honor.'

In 53 B.C., at the Battle of Carrhae, General Surena, commanding far fewer troops and resources, inflicted a resounding defeat on Rome's heavily armed legions in a display of perfect asymmetric mastery.

Crassus, one of Rome's richest and most powerful men, lost his life there.

The myth of Roman invincibility collapsed permanently, and Rome's imperial ambitions toward the East died on that battlefield. History, it is said, always repeats itself for those who refuse to face it or learn its lessons.'

Shortly after, the Iranian news agency Tasnim, citing Iranian sources, downplayed the importance of America's categorical rejection of Iran's counter-proposals. 'This doesn't matter. Nobody in Iran draws up plans to please Trump (…) but for the good of the Iranian nation. If it doesn't please Trump, all the better. Trump dislikes reality, which is why he continues to lose in Iran.'

Neither War nor Peace

Iran's tactic thus consists of maintaining this state of neither war nor peace, ultimately more costly for Americans than an end to hostilities, in hopes of securing as many gains as possible.

A high-risk gamble that, incidentally, recalls the suicidal venture into which Hezbollah dragged Lebanon following the death of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, killed in an American-Israeli strike on February 28.

How does the American president plan to respond? By reinforcing and indefinitely extending the blockade imposed on Iran to bring it to its knees, as suggested Sunday evening by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. He proposed 'Operation Project Freedom Plus' but without elaborating.

An option Donald Trump has not ruled out Monday in a statement to Fox News. The operation in question has so far involved helping oil tankers and cargo ships stranded in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf transit the Strait of Hormuz, which remains closed by the Iranians.

Will he return to the military option, with the backing of his Israeli ally? Once Iran's response reached him, the American president had a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is holding a consultation meeting this evening with several Israeli ministers and military officials. Israel remains ready to intervene and makes no secret of its determination to crush the clerical regime and end, once and for all, the Iranian threat.

For now, Donald Trump continues to keep his intentions hidden. Calling the Iranian response 'stupid,' he merely stated during a White House press conference that he has a plan—'the best of all time.' 'Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. It has been militarily defeated, totally. There's a little left. They probably managed to rebuild during this period. We're neutralizing them in roughly a day,' he said, hinting that the truce risks collapsing.

He accused Iranians of making promises and then reneging on them, vowing to quickly end the threat they pose.

Another question weighing on minds in this context of heightened tension: will Iran, in its confrontation with the United States, seek to use Hezbollah to derail the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations scheduled for Thursday the 14th and Friday the 15th of May in Washington?

This group, which has dragged Lebanon into the regional conflict against its will and has so far turned a deaf ear to all calls from authorities to end the escalation, has several levers to exert maximum pressure on them.

President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam each held a preparatory meeting Monday with American Ambassador Michel Issa, who will attend the talks.

Both called on Washington to 'pressure' Israel to cease its operations, while on the ground, fighting between Hezbollah and Israel continues with increasing intensity.