TEHRAN, Aug. 17 (Xinhua) — A 60-day window that Washington and Tehran set for themselves to hammer out a final peace agreement expired on Monday, ending not with progress but with the two sides further apart over how to move forward.
The clock started ticking in mid-June, when the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU), aimed at ending the war, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and paving the way for a final peace agreement.
However, instead of easing tensions, the situation has since swung between a renewed standoff over the strait, tit-for-tat strikes and sporadic diplomatic contacts.
RENEWED DISPUTE OVER STRAIT
Shortly after the MoU was signed on June 18, the ambiguous wording in the agreement over navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz triggered new clashes. Iran demanded all commercial vessels sail through a northern lane on the Iranian side, while the United States backed a southern lane off Oman.
The U.S. military struck Iranian targets, citing Tehran’s attacks on commercial vessels attempting to use the southern lane. Iran responded by shutting the strait again. The tensions escalated quickly: U.S. forces carried out air raids on Iran for more than 10 consecutive days, while Iran hit U.S. bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, with both sides at one point declaring the MoU void.
The United States reinstated its naval blockade to force Tehran to reopen the strait, while Iran laid down its own preconditions. Neither side budged. Although the MoU covers a range of issues — a ceasefire on the Lebanon front, safe passage through the strait and sanctions relief — the strait has become the main battleground, leaving little room to negotiate other issues, analysts say, adding that military action has proved unable to force concessions.
Diplomatic channels, however, have not gone entirely dark. The U.S. side has repeatedly said talks were continuing, and mediators including Pakistan and Qatar have stayed actively engaged. Tehran has denied it is in negotiations with Washington but acknowledged that Doha and Islamabad were relaying messages between the two sides.
LITTLE LEEWAY FOR COMPROMISE
Analysts say the prolonged standoff and the hardline positions taken by both sides underscore their reluctance to compromise. As tensions persist, each side is seeking to use its tough stance to gain greater leverage at the negotiating table, further narrowing the already limited room for a deal in the near term. On the issue of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, neither Iran nor the United States can afford to yield.
To Iran, the strategic waterway, a vital choke point for global oil shipments, is both a security lever and leverage for future bargaining, said Mohcine Karzazi, a professor of international relations at Morocco’s Hassan II University.
For the United States, accepting Tehran’s terms for reopening it would draw a political backlash at home, when midterm elections are only three months away, Karzazi said, adding that escalating military action risks depleting munitions stocks and driving up energy prices and living costs in the United States. Other disagreements are equally consequential.
Jumaa Mohammed, a politics professor at Iraq’s Tikrit University, noted that on the nuclear issue, the United States demands the complete dismantlement of Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, while Iran is only willing to freeze enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief. On regional influence, Washington insists that Tehran halt its support for its allies — Yemen’s Houthis, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq — while Iran is unwilling to give up its regional clout, Mohammed said. Pressure from hardliners on both sides, along with Israel’s role as “a spoiler,” further narrows any room for compromise, he noted.
A WAR WITHOUT AN END?
As the conflict drags on, analysts outline three potential scenarios. The most likely is a prolonged stalemate. Adel al-Ghurairi, a professor at Baghdad University, said Iran is unlikely to abandon its strategic reliance on the strait, while the United States may prefer to avoid restarting large-scale strikes. Instead, Washington may bet on economic pressure to bring Tehran to heel, leaving both sides locked in a stalemate with no diplomatic breakthrough in sight, he said. A second possibility is a limited interim arrangement. Abdulaziz Alshaabani, a Saudi researcher at Al Riyadh Center for Political and Strategic Studies, suggested that both sides, still in contact through mediators, have a mutual interest in averting a wider conflict.
He said they could first reach a temporary understanding on the strait through diplomatic efforts by mediators, before tackling other complicated matters. The third scenario is a return to open escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump has long threatened to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure and other vital facilities. Analysts warn such attacks could rapidly trigger large-scale military conflict. Iran’s recent appointment of several hardline figures to key military posts is also seen as a move to streamline wartime decision-making and prepare for possible escalation, they said.
