The War in Iran: Where the Parties Stand

Three months to the day after it began, the war in Iran appears to be in suspension, and in the calculations of Washington and Tehran, the opposing side will eventually give in with the factor of 'time'.

Although all signs suggest that Iran should capitulate after its military disaster and integrated economic losses estimated between 1,000 and 1,450 billion US dollars, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is not backing down.

It has no accountability to its people, prevents them from expressing themselves, has massacred at least thirty thousand of them, and imprisoned fifty thousand more as of last January.

The IRGC has thus secured its internal framework, firmly preserves its positions within it, and continues to coordinate closely with Hezbollah. Facing this force, Israel is launching targeted strikes and conducting a limited offensive in South Lebanon and parts of western Bekaa.

The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to international navigation by Tehran, and Washington maintains its blockade on Iranian ports. Despite ongoing negotiations to break the deadlock, the situation in the Gulf is described as a strategic impasse.

What about the demands presented by the belligerents, where do negotiations stand, and—a question asked and asked again many times—how could this war possibly end?

Washington's position

The Trump Administration maintains its demands, particularly the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the refusal to allow it to remain under Iranian control.

It is demanding firm guarantees for international freedom of navigation. On the nuclear issue, the United States is demanding the complete halt of uranium enrichment for military use and the sequestration, for sixty days, of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile with a trustworthy third country, pending negotiations for permanent dismantling.

Frozen Iranian assets would remain blocked as long as Tehran has not conceded on all American demands. The Abraham Accords should be expanded to all Gulf countries and Iranian support for Hezbollah must cease.

Finally, CENTCOM reserves the right to conduct immediate defensive strikes against any mine-laying or direct threat, as was recently the case at Bandar Abbas, as long as no final agreement has been signed.

Tehran's position

Tehran is demanding the complete and immediate lifting of economic sanctions, is calling for the return of the tens of billions of dollars frozen abroad, and wishes to entrust Qatar with the role of financial guarantor for unblocking funds. All restrictions on its oil exports should be abolished.

The Iranian regime reaffirms its sovereign right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and would be willing to temporarily transfer its highly enriched stockpile to China, provided this is not part of permanent dismantling.

It demands full recognition of its maritime sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and wishes the security of the Persian Gulf to be ensured exclusively by littoral states, excluding any Western military presence.

Tehran is demanding an immediate halt to CENTCOM strikes and refuses to ratify an agreement as long as these strikes continue.

Finally, Iran's top diplomat Abbas Araghchi refuses to tie a ceasefire to normalization between Arab countries and Israel and is seeking to convince Gulf monarchies to loosen their security ties with Washington.

Positions of Pakistan and Qatar

Negotiations are ongoing thanks to Pakistan, Qatar, and China, but they are facing profound mistrust between Iran and the United States whose contradictory statements are not facilitating a resolution.

Since 1979, Pakistan has hosted Iran's interests section in Washington and thus serves as the de facto communication relay between the belligerents. Its top officials closely coordinate military and civilian exchanges between Washington, Tehran, and Beijing to preserve the ceasefire. Qatar, for its part, focuses on financial mechanisms, particularly proposals aimed at unfreezing Iranian funds in exchange for maritime security guarantees.

China's Position

China does not assume the role of front-line mediator, which is left to Pakistan and Qatar, but acts behind the scenes as a strategic guarantor for both parties and as a financial guarantor for Iran.

It proposes a major technical solution: the nuclear stockpile. Iran would transfer its highly enriched uranium to China, offering Tehran an honorable exit and Washington tangible proof of short-term nuclear de-escalation, although the American administration shows reluctance to entrust this control to Beijing.

Economically, China is Iran's financial lifeline, purchasing nearly 90% of its oil under sanctions. It has leveraged this role as an indispensable economic partner to pressure Tehran into accepting the ceasefire of April 8.

To protect itself from the maritime traffic halt in the Gulf that it saw coming, China had accumulated massive reserves of 1.4 billion barrels of oil (enough for 6 months). This allowed it to negotiate without the absolute urgency that grips Western markets.

Beijing also insists on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, vital for its imports, while respecting Iran's pro-sovereignty discourse. Finally, China seeks to strengthen its regional influence and obtain American concessions on Taiwan in exchange for its stabilizing role.

The Art of the Geopolitical Deal: Trump's Negotiation Strategy

In these negotiations, President Trump applies a personalized and aggressive style, a geopolitical version of his "Art of the Deal," combining soothing public rhetoric with concrete pressure on the ground.

On one hand, the displayed optimism, asserting repeatedly an "imminent agreement," aims to reassure markets and the electorate; on the other hand, targeted military operations and maximum economic measures serve to force the IRGC to yield to US demands.

The White House chief favors bilateral channels with Pakistan and Qatar as well as direct dialogue with Xi Jinping, thereby imposing his unilateral narrative on the conflict's stakes. His "overheating" tactic consists of immediately demanding extreme positions (zero enrichment, adherence to the Abraham Accords) so he can then make concessions and sell compromises.

Finally, he involves China, accepting to entrust it with Iranian uranium, using it simultaneously as both leverage and a fuse. If the deal succeeds, he takes the credit; if it fails, he can denounce its responsibility.

Iran's Asymmetrical Negotiation Strategy

Iran's negotiation strategy is slow, patient, and methodical, based on asymmetrical resistance aimed at wearing down Washington through attrition.

Tehran practices "brinkmanship diplomacy" by provoking calculated tensions (mining the Strait of Hormuz, Hezbollah's involvement in a war with Israel, strikes against the United Arab Emirates, targeting ships in the Gulf) to demonstrate that the cost of inaction for the United States exceeds that of a compromise.

The Iranian regime exploits its moderate diplomats and the IRGC to alternately present flexibility and threats. It seeks to fracture pro-American coalitions in the Gulf and strengthen its ties with China and Pakistan to demonstrate that it is not isolated. It uses time as leverage, prolonging technical discussions to exhaust Washington, which faces intense political and financial pressure.

Finally, the sanctification of sovereignty makes any public capitulation unacceptable; technical solutions, such as uranium transfer to China, are therefore valued because they resolve the problem without Tehran appearing defeated.

Outlook

Negotiations are stalled, and as long as neither side has inflicted a sufficiently decisive shock to break the other's will, the conflict will persist in the shadow of measured but explosive tension (blockade, strait closure, intermittent strikes of varying intensity), which is bearable for President Trump but perhaps not for Tehran.

From there, the conflict could evolve in two ways: either Iran yields over time, signaling the beginning of the regime's end; or Washington concedes to certain Iranian demands, saving face for the regime, which would mean a setback for Trump.

Time will be the determining factor that will force one of the two parties to change course; otherwise, a third scenario would prevail: a devastating total war.