"Neither war nor peace" - expert explained what is happening with US-Iran negotiations
Kyiv • UNN
Donald Trump suspended military strikes to receive directives from the Iranian leader. The situation remains unstable due to internal struggles in Tehran.
One of the reasons for US President Donald Trump's decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran is that US and Pakistani mediators were waiting for Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to respond to the latest proposal and give clear directives to his negotiators.
The situation around Iran remains extremely unstable - hostilities are formally suspended, but there is no final peace, and the negotiation process is in limbo. Further developments will depend not only on the US position but also on the internal struggle within Iran's leadership, where some elites want a compromise, while others want continued confrontation. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive comment to UNN by political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko.
Currently, the situation between the US and Iran is "neither war nor peace"
According to the expert, the current stage of the conflict is atypical. Formally, major hostilities have stopped, but there are no guarantees of long-term peace.
What is happening now between the US and Iran can be characterized by the formula "neither war nor peace." This is a very precarious situation. Donald Trump took an unconventional but logical step for himself - he extended the truce while not lifting pressure from Iran. That is, military strikes are suspended, but economic and naval pressure remains
He noted that the US continues its de facto blockade of Iran, trying to weaken the country's economy, create internal pressure on the government, and force Tehran to make concessions.
What Trump wants
According to the political scientist, the American president seeks not a new major war, but a political agreement that can be presented as his own victory.
Trump wants a peace agreement, but on American terms. He needs a result that he can demonstrate to voters: Iran has agreed to control over its nuclear program, abandoned sharp escalation, and opened the Strait of Hormuz for world trade. This would be a success for Trump as a negotiator
At the same time, according to him, the problem lies in Trump's own inconsistency.
Today he talks about peace, tomorrow he threatens bombings, the day after tomorrow he again declares a chance to reach an agreement. This is his style - aggressive negotiating pressure. But such behavior often undermines trust in the process
What Iran wants
Fesenko emphasized that there is currently no unified position in Iran.
This is the main problem. Part of Iran's leadership wants to reach an agreement with the US to preserve the regime and prevent further destruction of the country. This primarily includes the civilian leadership, part of the political and religious elite. But there is a radical wing, particularly the security forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who want to continue the struggle
According to the expert, that is why it is difficult to predict Tehran's actions.
We see two opposing lines. One is to negotiate and save the country. The second is to stand to the end, even at the cost of a new war. Whoever wins within the Iranian government will determine the further course
Iran may face a resource crisis
According to Fesenko, prolonging the conflict carries serious risks for the Islamic Republic itself.
If the current blockade continues for several more months, Iran could face a severe internal crisis. This includes fuel shortages, power outages, problems with logistics between regions due to damaged infrastructure. But the most dangerous is the water crisis
The expert explained that Iran already had problems with water supply last year, and the war only exacerbates these risks.
The dry season is starting now. If the infrastructure is further destroyed, water shortages could manifest this summer. For a country of this scale, this is very dangerous
What compromise is possible
Fesenko believes that the most realistic path to an agreement is a return to the model of the Barack Obama administration.
This could involve international control over Iran's nuclear program, transferring stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to a third country for storage, limiting uranium enrichment while preserving peaceful nuclear energy. This seems like the most realistic compromise
The second block of agreements is the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran lifts the blockade of the strait, and the US eases its naval blockade of Iran. This could be a mutual step forward. The Strait of Hormuz is currently one of the main focal points of the conflict
Israel's position is significantly tougher
According to the political scientist, official Israel is interested in maximally weakening Iran.
The position of the Israeli government is to maximally weaken Iran as a state, destroy its military potential, economic capabilities, and prevent the emergence of nuclear weapons. The weaker Iran is, the more comfortable Israel is
At the same time, according to him, if Trump promotes a peace agreement, the Israeli prime minister is unlikely to openly oppose the US.
When war might erupt again
Fesenko named two basic scenarios for a return to hostilities.
First, if Iran strikes American ships, bases, or Israel. Then the US will respond. Second, if negotiations completely reach a dead end, and Iran refuses any compromises on its nuclear program. Then Trump may decide that diplomacy is exhausted
How this affects Ukraine
According to the political scientist, the situation is ambiguous for Ukraine.
There is a certain plus in that Trump is now more preoccupied with Iran and less focused on Ukraine as a source of his irritation. But overall, there are more minuses. This includes rising oil prices, a shortage of certain types of weapons, and the postponement of negotiation processes that are important for us
At the same time, he also sees an opportunity for Kyiv.
If the truce with Iran works, Ukraine can use this as an argument. Tell the Americans: you yourselves proposed a ceasefire model there - apply it to the Russian-Ukrainian war as well. This would be a strong diplomatic argument