The unfolding conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has entered a phase where perception and reality are dangerously misaligned. Publicly, the language of mediation, ceasefire, and diplomacy dominates official statements. Privately and on the battlefield, however, the tempo of war continues to intensify. What appears to be a pause for peace is, in fact, a calculated window—used by all sides to reposition militarily, economically, and strategically for what could become a far more devastating phase of conflict.
At the core of this crisis lies a deep distrust of U.S.-led diplomacy. Iran’s skepticism is not theoretical; it is rooted in recent experience. During earlier rounds of negotiations in mid-2025 and again in early 2026, diplomatic engagement coincided with military escalations. To Tehran, this pattern suggests that negotiations are being used as a tactical cover—buying time for force buildup rather than genuinely seeking peace. This perception has shaped Iran’s current posture: resistant, cautious, and unwilling to accept any framework that resembles surrender.
The United States, under Donald J. Trump, has reportedly advanced a comprehensive mediation framework—often described as a 15-point proposal. These demands include dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities, surrendering enriched uranium stockpiles, halting its ballistic missile program, ending support for regional allies such as Hezbollah and other groups, accepting intrusive international inspections, and aligning its regional policies with U.S. and Israeli security interests. Additional expectations reportedly extend to granting oversight of critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and contributing toward war-related compensation.
From Iran’s perspective, these are not negotiation points but conditions of capitulation. Accepting even a fraction would dismantle its deterrence capability, undermine sovereignty, and expose it to future vulnerabilities. Consequently, Iran has rejected these proposals outright and presented its own counter-framework: guarantees against future attacks, recognition of its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue peaceful nuclear enrichment under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, preservation of its ballistic missile program, refusal to abandon regional alliances, and compensation for war damages.
This stark divergence has rendered the mediation process effectively a non-starter. Countries such as Pakistan, Oman, Turkey, and Egypt have attempted to bridge the gap, but their efforts are constrained by the fundamental incompatibility of the positions.
Meanwhile, Israel has used the current operational window to intensify its campaign against Iranian targets. Its objective appears clear: degrade Iran’s military infrastructure, energy facilities, and command networks as much as possible before any ceasefire takes hold. Iran, in response, has escalated its missile and drone operations with increasing effectiveness. Despite Israel’s advanced defense systems—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow—there have been instances where Iranian projectiles have penetrated these layers, causing damage in key urban and industrial areas.
The asymmetry of geography and scale is critical here. Israel’s small territorial footprint makes it particularly vulnerable to sustained bombardment. In contrast, Iran’s vast size, large population of approximately 85–90 million, and extensive military reserves—including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and hundreds of thousands of trained personnel—position it for prolonged resistance. Historical precedents reinforce this reality: even non-state actors such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have withstood sustained campaigns. A state-level adversary like Iran presents a far more complex challenge.
For the United States, the situation is increasingly precarious. With an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 troops deployed across the Middle East, supported by carrier strike groups and amphibious forces, the logistical burden is immense. These forces depend on regional bases and supply lines for fuel, food, and operational continuity. Iran has explicitly warned that any entity supporting these supply chains could become a target, raising concerns about the sustainability of prolonged deployment.
The economic dimension of the war is equally significant—and perhaps even more consequential. The partial disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of global oil supply flows, has triggered volatility in energy markets. Oil prices have surged, driving inflation across major economies. In the United States, rising gasoline prices are translating into higher living costs, increased transportation expenses, and broader economic anxiety.
For Middle Eastern economies, the impact is even more severe. Countries that rely heavily on oil exports are facing declining revenues due to disrupted production, damaged infrastructure, and soaring shipping insurance costs. This financial strain is directly affecting their ability to honor previously pledged investments in the United States—commitments that reportedly approached $3 trillion. These investments, once seen as pillars of economic partnership, are now under threat as regional governments prioritize domestic stability over external commitments.
This shift has broader implications. The erosion of financial flows from the Gulf to the United States weakens a key channel of economic interdependence. At the same time, trust in U.S. security guarantees is diminishing. Many regional actors now question whether U.S. military presence serves their interests or primarily protects Israel. This perception is reshaping alliances and recalibrating geopolitical alignments.
On the global stage, the United States is encountering increasing isolation. European allies, while historically aligned with Washington, have shown reluctance to fully support the current conflict. Many have emphasized diplomacy and restraint, wary of being drawn into a prolonged war with uncertain outcomes. This divergence reflects a broader shift toward multipolarity, where alignment with U.S. policy is no longer automatic.
Domestically, the pressure is mounting. Public opinion in the United States is shifting as the economic costs of the war become more visible. Rising inflation, job market uncertainty, and fiscal strain are fueling dissatisfaction. Media narratives are increasingly questioning the justification and objectives of the conflict. Calls for de-escalation are growing louder, creating a challenging environment for policymakers.
Adding to this complexity are concerns about market behavior during the conflict. Reports of unusually large oil futures trades occurring shortly before major policy announcements have raised questions about information asymmetry and market integrity. While such movements may reflect anticipatory trading by sophisticated investors, they contribute to a perception that economic interests are intertwined with geopolitical decisions.
The composition of the U.S. negotiating team has also become a point of contention. Iran has expressed reservations about individuals perceived as closely aligned with Israeli interests, arguing that their presence undermines the credibility of mediation efforts. Adjustments, including greater involvement of senior officials such as Vice President JD Vance, have been considered to address these concerns. However, rebuilding trust remains a formidable challenge.
Taken together, these dynamics create a powerful matrix of pressure on U.S. policy. Economically, the war is straining both domestic and international systems. Diplomatically, it is isolating Washington from traditional allies. Strategically, it is entangling U.S. forces in a complex and potentially prolonged conflict. Politically, it is eroding public support.
At the same time, Iran appears prepared for a long war. Its strategy is not to seek immediate ceasefire but to endure, escalate selectively, and leverage its geographic and strategic advantages. By threatening key chokepoints and maintaining pressure on adversaries, Iran is positioning itself as a resilient actor capable of imposing significant costs.
The risk, however, extends far beyond the immediate participants. A prolonged conflict could trigger a global economic downturn, disrupt supply chains, and exacerbate inflation worldwide. Energy shortages, rising prices, and financial instability could push vulnerable economies into recession and deepen global inequality.
In this context, the current mediation efforts resemble less a pathway to peace and more a strategic pause—one that masks ongoing preparation for further escalation. The illusion of diplomacy cannot indefinitely conceal the realities of war.
If a genuine resolution is to emerge, it will require a fundamental shift: from maximalist demands to realistic compromise, from strategic maneuvering to genuine engagement, and from unilateral pressure to mutual recognition of sovereignty and security concerns.
Until then, the world remains caught in a dangerous paradox—where the language of peace coexists with the machinery of war, and where every pause may simply be the prelude to a more devastating confrontation.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC .He is living in Macomb, Michigan
