The ever-shifting landscape of Donald Trump’s foreign policy took another unexpected turn over the weekend, as discussions centered around military action and the ongoing tensions with Iran. Trump expressed his belief that Iran had not yet faced sufficient consequences for its actions. By Tuesday, the administration introduced “Project Freedom,” which was framed as a significant humanitarian initiative aimed at facilitating the escape of stranded vessels and their crews in the Gulf. However, this initiative also sought to diminish Iran’s control over the vital Strait of Hormuz.
By Wednesday morning, the focus shifted once again to diplomatic efforts, with the president proclaiming, “Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement,” leading to a temporary halt on Project Freedom to allow for further negotiations.
These three distinct strategies, employed over three consecutive days, share a common thread: they grapple with the complex reality that the Iranian regime is unlikely to collapse or relinquish its uranium enrichment rights, regardless of military pressure. Additionally, Tehran has demonstrated its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, and a comprehensive blockade of the Gulf would adversely impact the U.S. economy as well as Iran’s.
These stark realities have effectively confined the Trump administration within a metaphorical steel box, largely due to its own policy decisions. The recent fluctuations in approach indicate a struggle for the administration to find a viable exit strategy that avoids both humiliation and an extended conflict.
It is premature to determine whether Trump has discovered a feasible solution. His accompanying warning of increased military action at a “much higher level and intensity” if Iran does not accept the initial terms reveals his anxiety about the potential failure of negotiations.
Throughout the day, the details of the proposed terms became increasingly clear. Reports from Axios and Reuters indicated that the United States, Iran, and Pakistani mediators were nearing an agreement on a concise “memorandum of understanding.” This document would aim to conclude hostilities and initiate a 30-day period for discussions on Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. sanctions, and Iran’s frozen assets. During this month, both parties would gradually lift their blockades of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s announcement resulted in a drop in oil prices and an uptick in stock markets, aligning with his intentions to project optimism. Nevertheless, the situation remains precarious.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran indicated that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could be feasible, but refrained from directly addressing the proposed terms. Tehran has expressed that it desires the end of the blockade before engaging in further discussions. The Iranian foreign ministry stated that it is currently reviewing the proposal, while Ebrahim Rezaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, dismissed it as an unrealistic “American wishlist.”
There is considerable speculation regarding whether the various factions within Iran can unify behind a common position during serious negotiations. This proposal may serve as a critical test of that possibility.
Even if negotiations commence, a 30-day timeframe is exceedingly brief for resolving deeply entrenched issues such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and U.S.-imposed sanctions, all while dismantling the dual blockade.
Prior to the outbreak of conflict, Iran had proposed a five-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, while the U.S. sought a 20-year period. Current discussions appear to be exploring a compromise of 12 to 15 years.
Iran’s pre-war stance included measures to address its stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU), potentially through dilution or exportation. The latest proposal hints at the possibility of exporting HEU, possibly even to the United States.
As part of the agreement, Iran would permit the permanent return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a critical step for fostering international confidence in the credibility of any agreement.
In exchange, Iran’s billions in frozen assets would be gradually released—something Trump has criticized in the past—and sanctions would be lifted incrementally.
This agenda is ambitious and fraught with potential pitfalls. While neither side desires a return to conflict, both parties appear to believe that further hostilities may enhance their negotiating leverage, creating an unstable environment for pursuing peace.
Israel is also likely to oppose any agreement that fails to adequately address Iran’s missile capabilities or the activities of its regional proxies.
In an ideal scenario for the U.S., the terms reached would exceed those proposed in Geneva just days before the conflict erupted with an unexpected U.S.-Israeli assault. A longer enrichment moratorium and firmer commitments regarding HEU exportation would represent significant advancements. However, it remains uncertain whether such improvements could have been achieved through continued negotiations instead of military action.
Any future agreement should be evaluated against the framework of the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Under that agreement, Iran had no HEU and maintained a closely monitored, limited nuclear program.
If Trump seeks to claim success, he might highlight that even the 2015 deal did not offer the lengthy enrichment moratorium he is proposing.
However, any perceived progress will come at a significant cost, with more than 5,000 lives lost, including 120 children who perished on the first day of conflict in Minab, in addition to casualties in Lebanon.
The broader global repercussions—economic and environmental—will take years to unfold. The United Nations estimates that 32 million individuals could fall into poverty as a consequence of the war, primarily due to its effects on energy and fertilizer supplies.
UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher has noted that the $2 billion daily expenditure on the war could have saved approximately 87 million lives had those funds been directed toward humanitarian aid.
Ultimately, the full implications of this conflict remain difficult to quantify.
