A frozen war?

The Israel and U.S. war on Iran increasingly appears frozen in a cycle of media leaks and intermittent strikes, oscillating between an ever-near agreement and perpetual war. Yet until a deal is publicly approved, it is wise to read such reports with caution. Indeed, current back-and-forth talks are better viewed through the corresponding actions occurring alongside them, with recent tit-for-tat strikes and fighting in Lebanon suggesting a low-tempo war may be the near- to medium-term scenario at play as distrust prevents a deal.

The latest round in this cycle is currently playing out, with U.S. officials insisting that a framework for an interim agreement is all but signed. Of course, Iranian officials quickly disagreed, arguing that no agreement had been reached. This cycle, which started well before those recent reports, continues today.

Tellingly, U.S. officials have not spoken the same language about any pending deal. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent contradicted leaks from U.S. officials, referencing the nuclear components of any potential deal as details emerged that Iran’s nuclear program would be discussed after an interim agreement. Vice President JD Vance, viewed as unsupportive of the decision to go to war, similarly obfuscated on any such deal. President Donald Trump has repeatedly contradicted several details of the potential framework, reportedly demanding major last-second amendments.

This lack of consistency in messaging and decision-making in Washington and, to a lesser but significant degree, Tehran offers minimal clarity and the full picture all at once: Neither party understands or trusts the other and the actions their counterpart may take in response to their own. 

For the Trump administration, that dynamic is particularly jarring, reflecting a clear lack of strategy that has defined its illegal war of choice in the Middle East. To be sure, all U.S. presidents experience competing viewpoints across their administration. Trump’s team goes beyond such internal debates, with senior officials contradicting each other on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis. The issue, however, isn’t one of disagreement but of clarity and coordination regarding the war’s strategic direction.

That lack of strategy shows itself in recent exchanges of fire between the United States and Iran, as well as between Iran and Israel. The decision to strike Iranian military sites on numerous occasions amid the supposed finalization of negotiations hoped to end the war is inherently harmful to that effort, highlighting the Trump administration’s contradictions at the expense of a meaningful deal. Multiple U.S. sanctions on Iran’s shadow economy and new authority for regulating transit through the Strait of Hormuz issued in recent days further highlight and compound this issue as Iranian hardliners reject negotiating under pressure.

While no ceasefire is perfect, ongoing hostilities across the region are not indicative of a coming agreement, especially after Iran halted indirect talks with the United States on June 1 over Israel’s ongoing and expanded military operations in Lebanon. Indeed, Israel’s war on Hezbollah and Lebanon serves as a spoiler to Iran-U.S. talks and must be recognized as such in Washington. Iran’s decision to strike Israel over its attacks on Beirut highlights Tehran’s demand to include the entire Middle East in any deal to end what has long been a regional war.

With neither side fully aware of the new regional deterrence structure after the previous structure’s total collapse, the risk of escalation remains high. Iran’s newfound willingness to escalate beyond what many thought was an emerging deterrence structure established by Israel and the United States depicts the chaotic nature of the war. Trump’s habit of shifting positions on a whim and the consolidation of power around hardliners in Iran inflates the relatively uncontrolled nature of the existing escalatory risk.

It is for these reasons that any supposed framework for an interim agreement reflects the freezing nature of the war. An agreement to extend the ceasefire and return to the pre-Feb. 28 geopolitical context — the real nature of any so-called interim agreement — offers minimal faith that either party is nearing a serious deal as that context fostered today’s direct hostilities in the first place. Indeed, little suggests that the war’s developments have drastically shifted the warring parties’ positions from their hardline stances as opposed to bolstering them.

As such, details and sequencing between the two parties do not match their demands, leaving even a secretive agreement destined to fail in future talks over thornier issues. Washington’s ongoing refusal to seriously and sustainably rein in Israel in Lebanon — likely the defining component of any full agreement to end the war given Tehran’s demands for a true ceasefire there as well — only make U.S. waffling in negotiations more harmful to peace.

The tragedy of this war, its outcomes, and its persistence abound as neither Iran nor the United States have a real interest in the fighting. Yet without principled leadership that recognizes the scale of human suffering and wasted resources at play and rejects it for a realistic deal, the war is likely to continue in a frozen state in which U.S. troop deployments linger and tit-for-tat exchanges of fire that risk escalation constitute the norm. 

Nothing about this outcome should be acceptable. Yet until domestic political considerations in either country truly begin to leave an impact, stubbornness seems likely to prevail at the expense of strategy and working people in the United States, Iran, and the world.