Closure Without Clarity
The agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding coming out of the latest US-Iran negotiations is a validation of progress, but each signatory will interpret its requisite obligations in a way that advances its national interest. This will impact the speed and nature of the deal’s implementation and even threaten its ultimate viability.
Deals and Detours
The agreement Washington and Tehran signed electronically this week is being characterized as the end of the war, but that assessment is likely an overstatement. The document is a sixty-day interim memorandum which gives both sides a way to pause the fighting, but structural disagreements remain which could derail the diplomatic track.
Stuck in the Middle
The Middle East is erupting again this week, with kinetic attacks ranging from Iranian missiles launched at Israel to US strikes on petrochemical plants in Iran—but the military escalation is likely aimed to prompt a quicker diplomatic solution, not derail one. Neither side wants to continue full-scale fighting, but if Iran remains firm in its demands to control the Strait of Hormuz and refuses to negotiate on the nuclear issue, it will be difficult for Washington to back down, and we can expect lower-level violence to continue—if not expand.
Agreeing to Disagree
Washington and Tehran both want a deal, but not the same one. For the White House, the priority is reducing tensions in the Gulf, securing freedom of navigation through Hormuz, and preserving space for a longer diplomatic process on the nuclear issue. Iran, by contrast, appears to be seeking an arrangement that demonstrates the limits of American coercion while preserving the strategic assets and sources of leverage it regards as untouchable.
Managing The Edge
Washington and Tehran are edging toward an agreement neither side fully trusts, and neither side can afford to abandon. Reports that a draft framework had been largely negotiated briefly sent oil prices tumbling this week on expectations that the Strait of Hormuz could stabilize and sanctions relief might follow. But on the same day, US strikes on Iranian missile infrastructure and maritime assets—in retaliation for an Iranian strike on a US drone—pushed markets in the opposite direction and underscored that the situation is still volatile and an offramp from the standoff remains elusive.
Summits and Stalemates
Less than a week after President Trump’s departure from Beijing, Russian President Vladimir Putin touched down in China in a summit that will inevitably be viewed through the lens of Washington’s recent diplomatic engagement with President Xi. Officially, the meeting is about strengthening the Sino-Russian relationship—something Beijing insists is not mutually exclusive to a stable and beneficial relationship with the US.
Linked Leverage
The conflict between Iran and Washington has evolved into a fight between Iranian resilience and US patience, and so far Tehran appears confident that the impasse will ultimately work in its favor. Iran knows that President Trump is hesitant to resume kinetic attacks—both because of the risk it this poses to American lives and the potential inability to achieve his goals through military means—but that he’s also eager to get the Strait of Hormuz back up and running and needs to move the needle. With this dynamic at play, Iran appears to believe that it can get greater concessions out of Washington than it had initially hoped.
Shifting Red Lines
The ceasefire between Washington and Tehran has devolved into a high-stakes game of chicken rather than a path to a diplomatic resolution. Iran is maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, despite the US blockade, and Washington is probing how far it can push back without triggering a full-scale conflict.
