The American-Iranian scene has entered a new phase, where the war is no longer fought solely on the battlefield. Instead, each side is attempting to utilize its military, political, and economic leverage to reshape the terms of negotiation. This shift is reflected in the apparent contradiction between US President Donald Trump's escalation and ongoing communications with Tehran, which is not a contradiction but rather a reflection of the current stage. The pressure exerted by the US has become an integral part of the negotiation process.
Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly exemplified this logic, as he increased the threat level against Iran, linking the confrontation to the nuclear program and regional security. However, he left the door open for negotiations. Meanwhile, US-Iranian contacts continued in New York, culminating in a direct meeting between representatives of both sides. The timing of this meeting is significant, as Washington seeks to enter any potential settlement from a position of strength, while Tehran aims to prevent the escalation from becoming a permanent reality that would impose unilateral conditions.
The Strait of Hormuz has become a crucial element in understanding the situation, as it is no longer just a military arena or a card for Iran to play against the US. Rather, it has become an integral part of the negotiation process itself. The reopening of the strait is linked to energy security and global trade, but it also represents a card that Tehran can use to gain political and economic concessions. Consequently, any future settlement cannot address the strait as a separate issue but must consider it as part of a broader deal.
Qatar's efforts to mediate between the two sides are significant, as the country's Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, emphasized the dangers of the situation in the Gulf and the need to return to diplomacy. He also highlighted the importance of reopening the Strait of Hormuz and creating more stable regional security arrangements. This approach does not view the crisis as a bilateral dispute between Washington and Tehran but rather as a regional crisis affecting the security and economy of the entire region.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's stance on the crisis is also noteworthy, as Cairo views the situation from the perspective of regional security, state stability, and protection of maritime trade routes. Egypt's involvement in the crisis is linked to its concerns about the potential impact on the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and global trade. By engaging in diplomatic efforts, Egypt aims to prevent the escalation from spreading to other areas and to promote a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The complexity of the crisis is evident in the multiple files on the negotiating table, including Iran's nuclear program, sanctions, regional influence, and Gulf security. The difficulty in reaching a comprehensive agreement has led to the idea of incremental arrangements, which could start with stabilizing navigation, reducing escalation, and opening limited economic channels. This approach may not resolve the conflict but can provide a temporary reprieve and allow for negotiations on more strategic issues.
The coming phase may witness one of three possible scenarios: a limited settlement, where Washington and Tehran reach a restricted agreement on the Strait of Hormuz and economic pressures; prolonged management of escalation, where communications continue without a decisive agreement; or expansion of the confrontation, where the crisis spirals out of control, raising risks for the Gulf, Red Sea, and global trade. The critical factor will be the ability of the parties to manage the relationship between the battlefield and the negotiating table.
Key points
- The crisis has expanded beyond the US-Iranian conflict, affecting regional security, global trade, and the stability of the Middle East.
- Egypt's role in the crisis is significant, as it seeks to promote regional stability and prevent the escalation from spreading to other areas.
- The complexity of the crisis necessitates a comprehensive and incremental approach to negotiations, addressing multiple files and regional concerns.
