What Would a US-Iran ‘Peace Deal’ Look Like?
What Would a US-Iran ‘Peace Deal’ Look Like?
The path to a diplomatic resolution of the ongoing US-Iran conflict is far from clear, given the vast gap in the two sides’ negotiating positions.
The current ceasefire between the United States and Iran is not a resolution to the conflict. It is a procedural pause—a 14-day window featuring high-stakes negotiations aimed towards closing the wide gap still existing between both sides.
The weekend’s discussions in Islamabad, Pakistan, with delegations led by US vice president JD Vance and Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, were unproductive and failed to reach a settlement. However, the ceasefire remains in effect, and further negotiations could take place before the war resumes. In the interim, Trump has declared that the United States will “blockade” the Strait of Hormuz in order to prevent oil tankers from traveling to and from Iran.
The negotiations are structured around three core issues:
- Iran’s nuclear program;
- The status of the Strait of Hormuz; and
- Regional proxy conflicts across the Middle East, in which Iran has played an outsized role.
Each issue contains major divergence between parties with limited overlap. That means a single unified deal may be unlikely, as parallel conflicts exist within the one negotiation.
Issue #1: Iran’s Nuclear Program
With respect to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel are aiming for complete Iranian dismantlement, the removal of its enriched uranium stockpiles, and an end to Iran’s enrichment process entirely. Iran wants to preserve the right to enrich, maintain its nuclear capability, and to end inspections.
The gap appears to be insurmountable—one side wants full dismantlement, the other wants sovereign control over nuclear issues. The difference in positions on this issue is likely what led to the failure of the discussions in Islamabad; Iran was never willing to surrender its nuclear program outright, and the United States was never likely to accept any measure short of that.
If there is ever a resolution to the nuclear issue, it will likely take place as a stalemate—with Iran maintaining nuclear knowledge and probably a hidden enrichment capacity. But if the primary issue of the negotiations is fundamentally unresolvable, as it appears to be, it does not bode well for the negotiations at large.
Issue #2: The Strait of Hormuz
With respect to the Strait of Hormuz, the United States is demanding a full reopening and free navigation with no Iranian interference. Iran, on the other hand, wants controlled access, coordination with Iranian forces, and a transit fee of $2 million per ship—basically a shift from an open sea lane to a controlled chokepoint in which Tehran controls the tollbooth.
The two sides are closer here than on the nuclear program; both have an enduring interest in seeing the strait reopened to the hydrocarbon trade. There may be the possibility of some sort of joint management compromise, or partial reopening with selective passage. But Iran could still pose a risk that maintains pressure on global markets. Expect Iran to use Hormuz as a strategic bargaining tool—meaning they are unlikely to fully accede to US demands.
Issue #3: The Middle East’s Regional Proxy Conflicts
With respect to regional proxy conflicts, the United States and its allies—particularly Israel and the Gulf states—aim to end Iranian support for its “Axis of Resistance” proxy groups around the Middle East. At the same time, Washington has stressed that the two-week ceasefire does not extend to include Lebanon, where Israel is engaged in a war with the pro-Iran Hezbollah militant group. For its part, Iran holds that the regional ceasefire does include Lebanon—although Israel is acting as though it does not, and has continued to wage the war there despite the negotiations.
The current situation—and perhaps the most likely outcome—is a decoupling of conflicts, in which the United States and Iran pause their hostilities while the Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues. Of course, proxy escalation could trigger a collapse of the entire ceasefire, reigniting the US-Iran conflict.
The fragile extension of the ceasefire, without a formal deal amidst ongoing low-level conflict, is one of the more plausible outcomes.
What Would a Good “Deal” Look Like Between the US and Iran?
Neither the United States nor Iran have achieved their objectives in the ongoing war. While Iran’s leadership has been severely hurt and the country’s economy has been degraded, there is little evidence that the Islamic Republic is in imminent danger of collapse. Likewise, though its nuclear program has been degraded, it is unlikely to have been destroyed. The United States is spending billions of dollars per day on the war, and has no clear exit strategy other than to leave without fulfilling its objectives.
Accordingly, the best-case outcome for both sides, at least in the near term, is likely some sort of grand bargain, in which Iran achieves partial sanctions relief and limited nuclear concessions while Hormuz remains stable. Of course, the negotiations could still fail entirely—an outcome made more likely by the collapse of weekend talks in Islamabad—and the war could resume, or even expand.
Given the unresolved contradictions, given that both sides are claiming victory, an outright and traditionally satisfying resolution seems unlikely. The ceasefire feels more like a tactical pause than a strategic resolution, with neither side achieving their desired outcome.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is a writer and attorney focused on national security, technology, and political culture. His work has appeared in City Journal, The Hill, Quillette, The Spectator, and The Cipher Brief. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global & Joint Program Studies from NYU. More at harrisonkass.com.
The post What Would a US-Iran ‘Peace Deal’ Look Like? appeared first on The National Interest.