Shafaq News

US President Donald Trump’s repeated decisions to postpone strikes on Iran at the request of parties involved in the conflict no longer come as a surprise. After each delay, negotiations between Washington and Tehran regain momentum, yet the two sides have still failed to reach an agreement.

Trump’s latest decision to suspend a planned strike on Iran, following appeals from the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, has fueled questions over the reasons behind the US reversal. Political observers interviewed by Shafaq News say the move reflects the convergence of three key factors: accelerating diplomatic contacts, Gulf pressure, and the economic and military cost of any open confrontation in the region.

At the same time, Pakistan-backed regional mediation efforts continue to shuttle proposals between the two sides. The mediation has increasingly shifted from seeking to end the war to preventing its return, as both Washington and Tehran continue to reject each other’s conditions while escalating their demands. Islamabad conveyed a new 14-point Iranian proposal to Washington focused on ending the war, lifting sanctions, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while deferring more sensitive issues, including uranium enrichment, to later stages of negotiations.

The proposal coincided with reports of partial US flexibility toward allowing Iran to maintain a limited civilian nuclear program under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, in exchange for reducing enrichment levels and transferring part of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Despite these developments, major disputes remain unresolved, particularly over Iran’s right to enrichment, the mechanism for lifting sanctions, security guarantees, and the future of the US military presence in the region. Washington continues to insist on a central demand: no uranium enrichment inside Iran.

Read more: Force without a finish line: Iran is losing thewar, the US is losing the endgame

Crisis of Trust

Researcher on Iranian affairs Saleh Al-Qazwini said the roots of the dispute between Tehran and Washington lie in years of accumulated mistrust.

“The Islamic Republic does not trust the United States because of a long history of violating agreements and failing to honor commitments,” he told Shafaq News, stressing that Iran’s distrust does not mean abandoning negotiations.

“On the contrary, Tehran is keen to present itself as a state committed to political solutions, even if negotiations fail to produce tangible outcomes.”

Al-Qazwini noted that Iran pursues a “balanced deterrence policy,” and that “Tehran’s hand remains on the trigger, but at the same time it is serious about negotiations.”

According to the researcher, Iran places little confidence in US guarantees, viewing its immediate priority as “ending the war and aggression before moving to other issues, including the nuclear file.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to insist that ending the conflict across all fronts in the region is a prerequisite for negotiations on other matters, including its nuclear program. 

Read more: Ceasefire without sovereignty: how Lebanon's fragmented power blocks a peace with Israel

Cost of War

The push toward de-escalation is shaped by increasingly difficult economic calculations inside the United States, particularly with rising energy prices and fears that the conflict could spread across the Gulf and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.

Jordanian political science professor Hazem Ayad said economic considerations have become a decisive factor in the US administration’s decision to preserve the negotiation track.

“US markets have shown panic and alarm over the repercussions of the war,” Ayad told Shafaq News, pointing out that persistent concerns over inflation and the difficulty of lowering interest rates while the conflict continues have all pushed Washington to favor the diplomatic path.” He argued that the United States has failed to isolate Iran from China, warning that any open confrontation could evolve into “a prolonged war of attrition backed by international powers,” reducing the likelihood of entering a large-scale direct conflict.

Ayad concluded that negotiations, even without a breakthrough, remain the “preferred option” for all parties, particularly given the difficulty of making painful concessions at this stage. “Israeli pressure continues to heavily influence the American decision,” the academic said, and that Israel views the conflict as “an existential issue tied to its deterrence capability and preserving its regional position.”

Israel continues its military campaign in Lebanon despite the announcement of a ceasefire. While Israel says it retains freedom of movement to respond to Hezbollah violations under the agreement reached with the Lebanese state under US sponsorship, Tehran insists, according to statements by its officials, that ending the war in Lebanon is a core condition in any agreement.

Read more: US-Iran talks collapse; Analysts warn of high escalation risk as ceasefire deadline nears

Negotiations at a Standstill

Essam Al-Faili, professor of political science at Al-Mustansiriya University, said the high cost of war remains the main factor sustaining negotiations, describing it as a genuine barrier against the collapse of talks.

Al-Faili told Shafaq News that the mysterious military operations and explosions witnessed across the region in recent hours, including at sites linked to missiles and strategic weapons inside Israel, “have exposed the scale of risks associated with any broad escalation.”

These developments prompted Washington to delay its response to the latest 14-point Iranian initiative, noting that the US administration has so far limited itself to media leaks suggesting the Iranian proposals remain insufficient.

The continuation of communication channels between the two sides, alongside regional diplomatic activity, indicates that negotiations remain on the table as the logical alternative to war, he added, warning that “the negotiations remain fragile and vulnerable to collapse if Washington concludes that military action could achieve decisive results.”

The talks, al-Faili explained, are currently stuck in a phase of stalemate and indirect messaging, but still represent the preferred option “compared to an open-ended war with no horizon.” 

Read more: US-Iran war threatens Iraq’s fragile stability

Written and Edited by Shafaq News Staff.