It has been 60 days since the outbreak of the Iran-related conflict, and the United States and Iran have been trapped in an intractable confrontation stalemate of "no war, no talks". Recently, Iran’s Foreign Minister has launched visits to multiple countries, responding to the United States’ previous "epic anger" pressure and comprehensive "economic fury" sanctions with a proactive "diplomatic offensive".
Why have the U.S. and Iran fallen into the current stalemate? How long will this impasse last? These have become the core focus of global public opinion.
The international community generally believes that the U.S. and Iran may fall into a special state of "frozen conflict" — the risk of the resumption of hostilities remains at a high level, but neither side is willing to launch a full-scale war. At the same time, regional tensions continue to spill over, causing sustained impacts on regional and even global security and development. As relevant public opinion puts it: "The war launched by the United States to maintain its own hegemony is making the whole world pay the price."
The Strategic Shift Behind Iran’s "Diplomatic Offensive"
In recent days, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has launched a multi-faceted diplomatic campaign, visiting Pakistan first and then traveling to Oman for a meeting with Sultan Haitham of Oman. Among these, Araghchi’s trip to Russia on April 27 has attracted widespread attention from global public opinion.
Russian President Putin held an in-depth talk with Araghchi in St. Petersburg that lasted for an hour and a half. Putin clearly stated that Russia will make every effort to safeguard the legitimate interests of Iran and other countries in the Middle East, actively promote the early realization of peace and stability in the Middle East, and help cool down the regional situation.
Comprehensive information from various sources shows that through Araghchi’s series of diplomatic visits, Iran has put forward a new "phased approach" plan for negotiations with the United States: focusing first on the Strait of Hormuz crisis and the U.S. maritime blockade, promoting the long-term extension of the ceasefire agreement, or facilitating all parties to reach a consensus on the permanent end of the conflict; while negotiations on the nuclear issue will only be launched after the Strait of Hormuz is reopened and the United States lifts the relevant blockade.
During his visit to Pakistan, Araghchi also handed over Iran’s core conditions for ending the conflict to the Pakistani side, mainly including: implementing a new management system for the Strait of Hormuz, obtaining corresponding war compensation, and ensuring that the United States completely lifts the maritime blockade and no longer launches any form of aggressive acts.
The U.S. side has confirmed receiving the new plan proposed by Iran, but its response has been relatively cold and did not show a positive attitude. According to a U.S. official, President Trump clearly stated on April 27 that he "does not like the plan", the core reason being that the plan does not include the nuclear issue.
Analysts point out that judging from the statements of both the U.S. and Iran, despite obvious differences in their positions, both sides still retain the willingness to continue negotiations and have not completely closed the window of dialogue.
Iran’s proposal of the "phased approach" negotiation plan clearly reflects a major shift in its strategy: from the initial idea of pursuing a "comprehensive solution and one-step completion" to an action framework of phased advancement and greater pragmatism. On the premise of adhering to the bottom line of its core interests, Iran takes multi-faceted diplomacy as an important starting point, and tries to test the U.S. attitude by taking the initiative to make moves, striving to grasp the initiative in the new round of potential negotiations.
The Underlying Reasons for the U.S.-Iran "No War, No Talks" Stalemate
Relevant experts analyze that the U.S. and Iran have fallen into the "no war, no talks" stalemate mainly due to three core reasons, and this impasse is difficult to break in the short term and may last for a period of time.
First, political mutual trust between the two sides has been completely shattered. Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at the University of Tehran in Iran, said that Iran has completely given up illusions about the United States and will not easily accept the negotiation conditions proposed by the U.S. side. Araghchi’s two recent visits to Pakistan are more to respond to Pakistan’s mediation efforts, rather than truly hoping that Pakistan can facilitate the rapid reaching of a consensus between the U.S. and Iran.
Second, there is an irreconcilable opposition between the negotiating positions of the two sides. At present, the differences between the U.S. and Iran on the two core issues of the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz are still sharp, making it difficult to find a balance. At the same time, the negotiating purposes of both sides have been basically transparent. Relevant reports from Al Jazeera point out that against the background of being unable to gain an advantage on the battlefield, the United States attempts to "promote change through pressure" through negotiations to obtain interests that it failed to get on the battlefield; while Iran regards negotiations as an "extension of the war" and will not easily compromise on core interests.
Third, both the U.S. and Iran are facing great domestic pressure. Bao Chengzhang, a relevant expert from Shanghai International Studies University, said that the Trump administration is currently caught in a dilemma: it is unwilling to make compromises in negotiations, nor is it willing to launch a full-scale war with Iran again. In addition, with the U.S. midterm elections approaching, the room for adjustment of its foreign policy is further limited. On the Iranian side, the new leadership hopes to stabilize the domestic situation and rally domestic consensus through a tough stance against the United States, but at the same time, it is difficult to sustain a long-term war due to the continuous consumption of the conflict and the increasing economic losses.
Analysts further point out that behind the "no war, no talks" stalemate, both the U.S. and Iran are trying to exchange time for strategic space: the U.S. attempts to gradually "wear down" Iran’s economy through a long-term maritime blockade, and even trigger changes in Iran’s domestic situation; Iran, on the other hand, hopes to gradually break down the tough stance of the Trump administration with the economic pressure brought by fluctuations in oil prices and the political pressure of the U.S. midterm elections.
Industry insiders judge that without major unexpected changes, this confrontation stalemate may continue for a long time. Relevant Australian scholars said that this stalemate may present the characteristics of a "frozen conflict" — the core root cause of the conflict has not been resolved, low-intensity conflicts may break out at any time, but both sides will deliberately avoid the escalation of the situation into a full-scale war.
Day 60 of the Conflict: Multiple Impacts on the World
The relevant conflict launched jointly by the United States and Israel has lasted for two months, and its impact continues to spread, causing increasingly far-reaching impacts on the Middle East, the global pattern and even the lives of ordinary people. As some U.S. media put it: "The whole world is paying the price for the war launched by the United States."
—— The Strait of Hormuz crisis brings irreversible global impacts. Affected by the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz has fallen into a "double blockade" by the U.S. and Iran. This situation has continuously impacted the global energy market, blocked international trade and global supply chains, brought enormous pressure to the global food system, shaken the global financial environment, and triggered inflation risks in many countries. Affected by this, many international institutions have lowered their global economic growth forecasts for this year.
A relevant article in Nikkei Asia commented that this conflict is "the most economically destructive conflict in half a century", which not only shakes multiple core pillars of the global economy, but also its negative impacts will last for many years and cannot be reversed in the short term.
—— The Middle East is trapped in a dual dilemma of security and development. The game stalemate between the U.S.-Israel and Iran may continue for a long time, and the risk of the resumption and escalation of hostilities can never be eliminated. At the same time, more regional forces such as the Houthi armed forces in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon may be involved in the conflict, leading the Middle East to face a long-term turbulent situation.
Especially for the Gulf countries, the so-called "security guarantee" from the United States has instead become a "risk factor" for regional instability. The continuous turbulence of the regional situation has made these countries lose their investment advantage as the "oasis of stability in the Middle East", and both security and development issues are facing severe challenges.
—— The global international order has been severely impacted. The continuation of the Iran conflict has fully exposed that U.S. hegemonic behavior has formed an extremely dangerous inertia, becoming the core root cause of current global turbulence. Relevant analysis believes that if hegemonic forces are not contained and international rules are arbitrarily broken, it will trigger a "broken window effect", and more unimaginable dangerous acts will occur frequently, plunging the entire world into a more turbulent and chaotic situation.
Brahma Chellaney, a professor at the Center for Policy Research in India, said that this Iran conflict aimed at maintaining U.S. hegemony is triggering a "systemic crisis" on a global scale, "and the world has only just begun to pay the price for it."
Risk Warning and Disclaimer
The market is risky, and investment needs to be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the special investment objectives, financial situation or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views or conclusions in this article are in line with their specific situation. Investment based on this is at the user’s own risk.
+1 6269975768
微信
Teams