|
Brighty Ann Sarah
8 May 2026 |
In the news
On 03 May, Iran shared a 14-point proposal with the US via Pakistan that called for the permanent end of the war and a complete resolution within 30 days, which was rejected by President Trump as not satisfactory.
On 04 May, Trump launched ‘Project Freedom,’ which employed US naval assets to transit vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, breaching Iran’s blockade of the strait.
On the same day, in a sharp escalation of hostilities, Iran struck several vessels, including an oil tanker owned by the UAE’s ADNOC, and launched drone strikes across Abu Dhabi, striking a key oil refinery in Fujairah.
On 05 May, Iran’s FM Abbas Araqchi condemned Project Freedom as “Project Deadlock," adding that the strikes on the UAE were not pre-emptive, and that talks were progressing steadily with Pakistan’s mediation.
Separately, Trump announced a halt to Project Freedom and associated hostilities, stating that "great progress" had been made toward a deal with Iran. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also declared that Operation Epic Fury, the air and naval campaign launched on 28 February, was “concluded” and that Washington has achieved its objectives in Iran.
On 06 May, Pakistan confirmed that Washington and Tehran had reached a 14-point, one-page memorandum to end hostilities. President Trump claimed that a deal would be arrived at “very quickly,” in the absence of which, Washington will “go back to bombing the hell out of them.” He asserted that the deal excludes any possibility of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
On 07 May, sources reported that Iran was reviewing the US proposal, and that Washington and Tehran were hedging towards a deal that would facilitate a temporary cessation of hostilities in exchange for a comprehensive peace plan.
On the same day, Washington and Tehran exchanged fire in another escalation, although President Trump asserted that the ceasefire was still in place.
Issues at large
1. The fragile ceasefire and the tensions in opening the Strait of Hormuz
Washington’s Project Freedom and subsequent Iranian retaliations have been the highest point of escalation since the ceasefire was established in early April. Iran viewed Washington’s involvement of US Navy destroyers, aircraft, and personnel as a major ceasefire violation and responded with coordinated attacks, including swarms of drones, cruise missiles and fast-attack boats targeting US forces and escorted shipping, and also launched strikes on targets in the UAE. Although the hostilities came to a halt within 50 hours, their resurgence amid Iran’s deliberation over the US proposal and Washington's repeated efforts to reopen the strait highlight the urgency to resume transit and the fragility of the ceasefire.
2. Conflicting demands and the risk of deadlock
The 14-point plan proposed by the US emphasises the immediate reopening of the strait over the long-term resolution of the conflict. The MOU would declare an end to the war in the region, including related fronts, with both sides agreeing to lift restrictions on transit through the strait during the 30-day window. However, Washington remains steadfast in its demands against Iran’s nuclear programme, demanding a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment, reportedly 12-15 years, down from an initial US push for 20, shipping out its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, pledging not to pursue its nuclear weapons programme and accepting enhanced IAEA snap inspections.
The success of the deal hinges on Iran ceding to US demands and making room for further political negotiations. Iran’s top leaders have already rejected the demands as an American “wish-list,” indicating that Tehran is unlikely to forgo its long-standing claims on nuclear enrichment. The repeated deadlock over the same point of contention is likely to culminate in a ’no war, no peace’ limbo or renewed hostilities and escalation of the conflict.
3. The show of force by the US
The regional powers have not stepped in to join the US in opposing the Iranian blockade. The extent to which they have expressed explicit solidarity with the US is in the recent UN resolution against Tehran. This is despite repeated US efforts to mobilise a coalition and Iran’s attacks on US military bases and oil infrastructure across the region. Washington’s military efforts to breach the blockade, first through the Maritime Freedom Construct and then through Project Freedom, received little participation.
The UAE’s interception of drone attacks within its own territory and subsequent condemnation of Iran’s strikes mark the limited military involvement from the Gulf states, highlighting the region's efforts to avoid further escalation at the strait. Countries, including South Korea, with nearly 20 vessels caught in the strait, have not responded affirmatively to Washington’s call to join Project Freedom.
In perspective
First, testing the ceasefire to nudge political negotiations. Washington’s naval intervention to wrest the ships out of the blockade and the subsequent retaliation from Tehran were both attempts to gauge Tehran’s response and nudge negotiations toward reopening the strait under the threat of military escalation. Both Washington and Tehran want to lift the blockade of the strait, but without progress in the political negotiations, the standoff has been reduced to a dilemma of who blinks first. Washington’s military escalation, Trump’s optimism that the
Second, Washington’s loop of repeated threats and unyielding demands. Washington’s repeated threats of military intervention, combined with unchanging core demands on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, have trapped the conflict in a self-reinforcing loop with little meaningful progress. With the US insisting on discarding Iran’s nuclear programme entirely, and Iran refusing to accept what it sees as an erosion of its sovereignty, the standoff increasingly appears headed toward a prolonged stalemate rather than a negotiated resolution.
