Hours before a two week ceasefire was due to expire, US President Donald Trump announced an indefinite extension of the truce with Iran, citing deep divisions within the Iranian government that are obstructing progress in negotiations.
However, analysis published by Newsweek argues that this extension does not signal de escalation. Instead, it reflects the depth of the crisis. The war, which began on 28 February with the involvement of Israel and was expected to last no more than two weeks, has now evolved into a prolonged and unresolved conflict.
The report identifies five pressure points that could rapidly destabilise the current fragile calm.
1. China’s Strategic Leverage
China is described as one of the few external powers with real influence over the crisis, while simultaneously remaining the United States’ primary strategic rival.
According to the analysis, increasing US pressure on Iran, particularly through sanctions and blockade measures, raises the likelihood that Beijing will treat the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic arena for influence and control over energy flows into Asia.
The blockade directly threatens China’s energy security, prompting Beijing to label it “irresponsible and dangerous”. While China currently seeks to avoid direct confrontation with Washington, particularly ahead of a planned summit in mid May, this balancing act is considered inherently unstable. Any escalation in US pressure could shift China’s posture from restraint to strategic intervention.
2. The Israeli Factor
The report highlights Israel’s unilateral military posture as a major destabilising factor. It argues that Israel does not operate within Washington’s diplomatic timeline, and its actions risk undermining ongoing mediation efforts.
Israeli strikes in Lebanon during the early days of the truce nearly derailed diplomatic progress. Despite a US announced 10 day cessation of hostilities in Lebanon starting 16 April, Israeli forces targeted the Lebanese town of Tayri on 22 April.
This operational independence gives Israel room to act outside US strategic calculations. If it perceives that negotiations between Trump and Tehran do not align with its security objectives, it may launch a direct attack on Iran, placing Washington in a politically and militarily difficult position.
Delays in reaching a formal agreement further increase the probability of unilateral Israeli escalation.
3. Internal Fragmentation in Iran
Trump’s description of Iran’s leadership as “deeply divided” is supported by assessments from the Institute for the Study of War, which notes the absence of a unified negotiating authority.
Instead, decision making is split between diplomatic channels engaging with Washington and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which maintains operational control on the ground.
According to The Independent, the balance of power within Iran has shifted following the assassination of key figures, including Ali Khamenei. The influence of moderate and pragmatic factions has declined, while security driven elements within the IRGC have expanded their authority.
Researcher Vuk Vuksanovic from LSE Ideas argues that Israeli strikes have eliminated individuals who may have facilitated a diplomatic settlement with the United States. As a result, Iran’s leadership is now more inclined toward direct and firm responses, increasing the likelihood of escalation.
This shift is compounded by a deep erosion of trust in the United States, driven by past withdrawals from agreements, targeted assassinations, and stalled diplomatic efforts, particularly in Lebanon.
4. Time Pressure on Both Sides
Trump initially framed the war as short, decisive and effective. The extension of the truce without a clear agreement has exposed a growing timeline risk, where weeks may turn into months without tangible progress.
This places the US administration under pressure, particularly amid rising energy prices and inflation ahead of midterm elections.
For Iran, the pressure is even more acute. Its economy remains heavily dependent on oil exports, which are directly targeted by US restrictions. According to the analysis, the economic impact of the conflict could persist for months or even years, making prolonged delay increasingly costly for both sides and potentially forcing decisions that carry significant consequences.
5. Accumulating Internal and Global Pressures
Domestic pressure on the US administration is intensifying. Polling by the AP NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows Trump’s approval rating on economic performance falling to 30 percent, down from 38 percent a month earlier.
This decline is closely tied to rising energy prices linked to instability in the Strait of Hormuz. Data from the US Energy Information Administration indicates that average diesel prices exceeded $5.80 per gallon in April.
Internationally, the International Energy Agency has warned of potential jet fuel shortages in Europe within weeks if the blockade persists. Meanwhile, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has cautioned that continued disruption to maritime routes could slow global trade and economic growth in 2026.
As losses mount, pressure is increasing on both Washington and Tehran from allies and global partners to reach a rapid resolution.
What Are the Possible Paths Forward?
According to The Times, analysis based on expert views suggests that the current deadlock is rooted in mutual intransigence.
Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group states that the United States refuses to lift sanctions, while Iran refuses to negotiate under continued pressure. Breaking this stalemate would require one side to concede first, a scenario he considers unlikely.
Even if a preliminary framework emerges, it is expected to remain broad and insufficient to resolve the core disputes driving the conflict. Iran continues to reject full abandonment of uranium enrichment, reductions in its missile programme, and limitations on its regional alliances.
Vaez argues that any future agreement will likely resemble the nuclear deal reached under former US President Barack Obama, which Trump later withdrew from while promising a stronger alternative.
Former Israeli intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz warns that maintaining the blockade without a deal makes escalation “almost inevitable”. He suggests that Iran could respond by targeting oil tankers, posing a direct threat to the global economy.
He further anticipates that any renewed escalation would be rapid and intense, potentially involving US strikes on critical Iranian infrastructure, including power plants and desalination facilities, if the conflict expands again.
