US and Iran find themselves in stalemate as Pakistan pushes for talks

[NEWS ANALYSIS] Courtesy of a Truth Social post by US President Donald Trump, the ceasefire between Iran, the US and Israel, which was due to expire on Wednesday, is at least persisting.

Instead of fighting, we have a “blockade war” over the Strait of Hormuz, in which both sides use force to intercept and seize commercial vessels.

The atmosphere in one of the world’s most important waterways is combustible. It would be unwise to bet against events that spiral out of control.

Meanwhile, Islamabad is still awaiting the arrival of Iranian and American representatives for peace talks.

Some areas of the city remain sealed off, signs are still up and the hotel where the talks were supposed to take place is empty, ready for the hoped-for return of high-level delegations.

But after several days of feverish anticipation, the atmosphere changed.

Gone are the press chatter in distant Washington being told to head to the airport, or the speculation about the contents of the giant C-17 Globemaster transport planes that landed at a nearby military air base earlier in the week.

In its place is the sad realization that the opportunity for Pakistan to prove itself on the international stage, to broker a deal – any kind of deal – between mortal enemies may have slipped out of Islamabad’s grasp. For now.

Pakistan did not surrender. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who has invested considerable diplomatic capital in bringing the two sides together, posted on social media that Pakistan “will continue its sincere efforts for a negotiated settlement of the conflict.”

Donald Trump has told at least one reporter that a deal is still possible in the coming days.

It’s hard to know whether this is reality, or the voice of an impatient man eager to remove Iran from his most urgent to-do list before King Charles arrives in Washington for a state visit next Monday — and Trump’s long-awaited visit to China not long after.

Iran has rejected the president’s suggestion of giving Tehran time to develop a “unified position”, but it seems unlikely that the regime, already wounded and battered by the war, will break the ceasefire, thus inviting further aerial punishment.

In the meantime, what are we to make of the Iranian delegation’s reluctance to get on a plane for the short trip to Islamabad?

Donald Trump’s wildly conflicting public statements – first threatening apocalyptic punishment and then offering an olive branch, while claiming that Iran has already made significant concessions – have muddied the waters.

Iran continues to complain that it has entered negotiations twice in the past year, only to be attacked by Israel and the United States.

But Donald Trump’s Truth Social post announcing the extension of the ceasefire, devoid of the usual grandiloquence, spoke of a “severely fractured, not unexpectedly” Iranian regime.

For a man who trumpeted that he had already achieved regime change in Iran, was this an admission that Washington is struggling to know who it is dealing with?

Has “regime fracturing” made diplomacy with Iran – never the easiest art to master – much more difficult?

Deliberately or not, the president, through his choice of words, briefly joined the debate that has raged among veteran Iran watchers in recent days: Who is in charge in Iran now that much of the old leadership is gone?

[BBC]

Related