The fragile US-Iran ceasefire is running out of time, and the prospect of a definitive peace agreement remains uncertain. Talks are ongoing but structurally strained. Recent incidents have included the confiscation of ships, blockades, and escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington and Tehran are negotiating, but each side is also attempting to gain leverage through pressure.

The negotiations have reached a standstill because of deep mutual distrust. Iran perceives US proposals as predetermined: talks conducted under duress, ongoing sanctions, and implicit threats of war if negotiations fail. Meanwhile, Iran seeks sanctions relief and greater control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Behind the diplomatic signaling lies a major divide that is not easily reconcilable. The United States wants Iran to agree to stop enriching uranium. It also seeks Iran’s commitment to surrender uranium stockpiles, curtail missile development, and reduce funding for regional proxies.

Iran’s position centers on sovereignty and economic survival. It emphasizes the need for sanctions relief, control over the Strait of Hormuz, and time-bound restrictions on its nuclear program.

While technical trade-offs are feasible, bridging this divide would require a level of confidence and verification that neither side appears willing to embrace.

Killing Pragmatists, Empowering Hardliners
Iran’s negotiating posture is shaped by internal power struggles and competing geopolitical visions. External forces also play a role. With the passing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, authority has been divided among rival ruling factions.

Until he was killed in Israel’s decapitation campaign, Ali Larijani was regarded as a voice of stability in Iran. Larijani, a pragmatic conservative respected across the political spectrum, served as a bridge between hardliners and policymakers. He was skilled in nuclear diplomacy and institutional collaboration, often transforming intractable positions into negotiable proposals. The regime benefited from his pragmatic flexibility.

Larijani’s death is a major blow to pragmatic leadership. It also deprives the United States of one of the few figures capable of facilitating a US-Iran peace agreement.

Mojtaba Khamenei has assumed power following the assassination of his father, Ali Khamenei. Mojtaba, an ally of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), favors a security-first approach grounded in ideological cohesion. He appears unwilling to negotiate, making his position more rigid and consolidated.

Without leaders such as Larijani, the prospects for dialogue have diminished. The balance of power now leans toward a harsher stance. This reduces the likelihood of short-term accommodation and increases the risk of strategic confrontation.

Trump’s Negotiating Style: Coercion, Visibility, and Risk
Trump’s approach combines coercion and visibility, including military pressure, public deal-making, and narrative control. This strategy can be effective in conventional business transactions, where leverage may quickly produce an agreement.

However, this method is unstable in a complex geopolitical context. High visibility reduces flexibility, while coercion breeds resistance.

Trump’s reliance on instant messaging through his preferred social media platform, Truth Social, has made an already turbulent process even more unstable. Trump regularly declared that a deal was imminent, yet Iranian officials later rejected those claims. This has undermined US credibility and increased strategic uncertainty.

Iranian negotiators cannot appear to concede publicly, especially under hardline scrutiny. This lack of open communication makes it difficult to achieve a durable peace agreement.

Domestic Fallout of a Foreign War
Rising gas prices have fueled inflation and public anger. Trump’s approval rating has fallen below 40 percent, as many Americans fear the war’s economic consequences.

At the same time, polling data suggest that Democrats could regain control of Congress as voters grow increasingly anxious about the economy and inflation.

Energy costs matter. The war has also increased pressure on the cost of living, with fuel prices climbing by double-digit percentages since the conflict began, highlighting the war’s immediate domestic consequences.

The analysis suggests a widening gap between policy goals and public support. Low approval ratings are not merely part of the normal ebb and flow of politics; they also reflect perceptions of economic mismanagement and political overreach.

Trump has faced twofold pressure: to secure a diplomatic victory and to reduce the war’s political costs for the Republican Party. The US president stated that it was “highly unlikely” he would extend the ceasefire if no deal were reached by the deadline. However, only hours before the deadline expired, he announced a ceasefire extension with Iran until its leaders “come up with a unified proposal.”

A Regional War with Global Price Tags
Failure of the peace talks would have repercussions far beyond the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is vital to global energy flows. Disruptions in the Strait can trigger fuel price volatility and broader economic instability.

The IMF warned this week that a protracted conflict could push the global economy to its weakest point since the COVID-19 pandemic—or even into recession. The economic consequences are already visible in turbulent markets, currency volatility, and declining investor confidence.

The US-Iran feud is now a global economic factor, not merely a regional issue.

Beyond Pakistan: Time for Global Diplomacy to Lead
The potential failure of a US-Iran peace agreement and its severe impact on the global economy should serve as a wake-up call for the international community to stop relying on Pakistan as the sole intermediary. Major actors, including European nations, China, and Canada, as well as developing middle powers such as Indonesia, must do more than merely observe.

A well-designed diplomatic initiative is now a necessity, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations or another recognized international organization.

Without broader international engagement, US-Iran negotiations may remain mired in coercion rather than consensus, and in escalation rather than resolution. The world will pay a heavy price for inaction.

---
Didin Nasirudin is a doctoral candidate in Political Communications and Diplomacy at Sahid University, with a research focus on US politics. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.