US-Iran diplomacy at a crossroads: Why a settlement remains elusive but possible

From the report

A diplomatic settlement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran remains difficult to achieve, but the prospect of an agreement should not be dismissed. Despite continuing mediation efforts, deep political mistrust, competing strategic objectives and the threat of renewed military confrontation are preventing Washington and Tehran from finding common ground. The current situation reflects a fragile balance in which neither side appears ready to make the concessions necessary for a lasting peace.

The uncertainty intensified on November 12 when US President Donald Trump declared that Washington did not need a deal with Tehran. His remarks underscored the administration’s confidence in economic pressure, sanctions and the naval blockade as instruments for compelling Iran to change its position. However, such a strategy carries significant risks. If Tehran concludes that Washington is seeking its political capitulation rather than a negotiated settlement, Iranian leaders will have little incentive to make concessions. Instead, they may interpret continued negotiations as a potential prelude to another military confrontation.

At the heart of the diplomatic impasse is a fundamental disagreement over what negotiations are supposed to achieve. Washington wants guarantees that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons, alongside restrictions on its regional military activities and the restoration of secure maritime navigation. Tehran, meanwhile, wants the naval blockade lifted, sanctions eased, frozen assets released and guarantees against further military attacks. These competing demands reveal that the two governments are not simply negotiating the terms of an agreement; they are disputing the strategic balance that should emerge after the conflict.