The military confrontation and difficult negotiations between the United States and Iran are approaching a decisive moment, with regional mediators pursuing a diplomatic settlement while Tehran reportedly prepares for another wave of American and Israeli military strikes.
An analysis by Eli Leon, published in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, describes two competing scenarios shaping the next phase of the confrontation: an imminent compromise facilitated by regional intermediaries, or a prolonged diplomatic standoff accompanied by renewed military escalation.
Citing international reports and opinion polls, the newspaper suggested that Iran is in no hurry to reach an agreement ending the war, which it described as having continued for eight months. Instead, Israeli assessments presented in the report argue that Tehran is pursuing a strategy of buying time to advance its political and military objectives.
Iran’s Strategy: Denying Trump a Political Victory
According to Maariv, Iranian officials are deliberately prolonging negotiations in an attempt to weaken US President Donald Trump’s domestic political standing ahead of the congressional midterm elections scheduled for November.
The newspaper portrayed Tehran’s position as part of a broader calculation in which the Iranian leadership believes that continued diplomatic uncertainty could increase pressure on Washington, particularly as the economic consequences of the confrontation become increasingly difficult for the American administration.
Rather than placing its hopes on a swift agreement, Iran is reportedly preparing for the possibility of renewed military attacks by Israel and the United States.
The Israeli newspaper suggested that Tehran has little intention of granting Washington an easy political victory through a settlement that would allow Trump to claim a diplomatic breakthrough without securing concessions acceptable to Iran.
Iran’s position on its nuclear programme remains a central obstacle.
Mohsen Rezaei, identified in the report as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, insisted that not a single particle of enriched nuclear material would leave Iranian territory.
He reiterated Tehran’s rejection of negotiations unless its conditions are met, reinforcing the Iranian position that any diplomatic arrangement must address its demands rather than simply accommodate American expectations.
War, Sanctions and the Economic Pressure on Washington
The confrontation has also produced economic consequences extending far beyond the immediate military theatre.
According to the Israeli report, the continuing war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to rising global oil and petrol prices, placing additional political pressure on Trump as his administration approaches the midterm elections.
The resulting economic disruption has reportedly contributed to declining approval ratings for the American president, adding a domestic political dimension to Washington’s confrontation with Tehran.
Iran, meanwhile, is confronting severe economic difficulties of its own.
The naval blockade and sanctions imposed on the country have intensified economic pressures, while record inflation has placed further strain on the Iranian economy.
These competing pressures have become central to the diplomatic calculations of both governments.
While Washington faces the political consequences of rising energy costs and economic instability, Tehran must contend with the effects of sanctions, maritime restrictions and the prolonged confrontation.
Nevertheless, the Israeli assessment suggests that Iranian decision-makers may regard the political costs imposed on Washington as sufficient reason to resist an agreement that does not satisfy Tehran’s conditions.
Qatar and Pakistan Pursue a Temporary Diplomatic Settlement
Despite the pessimistic military assessments, regional diplomatic efforts have continued, with mediators reportedly expressing optimism about the possibility of reaching an arrangement that could prevent another round of attacks.
Maariv highlighted diplomatic proposals emerging from Qatari and Pakistani mediation efforts, suggesting that a temporary agreement may offer a way to contain the confrontation without immediately resolving the deeper disagreements between Washington and Tehran.
The proposed arrangement reportedly centres on the release of interest accumulated on approximately $6 billion in Iranian funds frozen in Qatari banks.
In exchange, Tehran would permit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct confidential, unannounced visits to Iranian nuclear facilities.
Such an arrangement would establish a limited exchange of concessions, providing Iran with access to financial proceeds while allowing international inspectors additional access to its nuclear programme.
The proposal would not necessarily constitute a comprehensive settlement of the underlying dispute, but it could provide a temporary diplomatic mechanism to prevent further military escalation.
Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed optimism regarding the diplomatic process, confirming that exchanges of messages between the parties remain ongoing.
The continuation of these indirect communications indicates that diplomatic channels have not been exhausted, even as preparations for a possible renewed confrontation continue.
Israeli Pressure and Deep Distrust Threaten Negotiations
Despite the possibility of a temporary agreement, Maariv emphasised that the profound lack of trust between Washington and Tehran remains a fundamental obstacle to a diplomatic breakthrough.
Continued Israeli pressure further complicates the negotiations, raising questions about whether the United States and Iran can reach an arrangement capable of preventing another military confrontation.
The Israeli newspaper’s assessment presents the coming period as a choice between two sharply different outcomes.
The first would involve a limited diplomatic settlement that restrains further escalation, potentially through the financial and nuclear inspection arrangement currently under discussion.
The second would see negotiations fail, leaving the region exposed to a broader military confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States.
For Tehran, the calculations extend beyond the immediate terms of a proposed agreement to include the political consequences for Washington, the preservation of its nuclear assets and preparations for further military attacks.
For Washington, the diplomatic challenge is unfolding alongside mounting economic pressures and an approaching electoral contest.
Whether the competing pressures produce a temporary compromise or another round of military escalation remains unresolved, with regional mediators continuing their efforts against a backdrop of deep mistrust and persistent Israeli pressure.
