The United States once again violated the fragile ceasefire on May 26, 2025, by carrying out attacks against missile sites and Iranian-flagged vessels in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major energy and trade hubs. Washington justified the operation by claiming it acted to protect its troops stationed in the region from Iranian units, which it accused of attempting to lay sea mines along the strait to threaten the safety of international shipping. Among the areas targeted was Hormozgan Province, while Tehran issued an immediate and harsh political and military response.
The commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Seyed Majid Moosavi, called talks with the enemy “futile,” while reiterating, however, that Iranian forces remain ready to respond immediately should the raids continue. Moosavi’s statements reflect growing skepticism within Tehran’s leadership regarding dialogue with Washington, especially following prolonged bombings interspersed with fragile diplomatic attempts. The dynamic appears to be repeating a pattern that has already characterized the crisis in recent months: announcements of imminent agreements followed by sudden military escalations that ultimately postpone negotiations.
On the negotiating front, the key figure for the Islamic Republic tasked with leading the talks remains Mohammad Baqr Qalibaf, speaker of the Iranian Parliament and the main point of contact in the dialogue with the United States. At the very time of the attack, Qalibaf was in Doha (Qatar) for a series of consultations with local authorities, in an effort to unfreeze approximately $24 billion dollars in Iranian funds held abroad. According to diplomatic sources, the release of these funds would be one of the decisive factors in accelerating the finalization of a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran.
In this context, Qatar is playing an increasingly central role as a mediator. Doha fears that an outbreak of violence in the Strait of Hormuz could jeopardize not only the security of the Persian Gulf but also global energy trade, on which much of the region’s economic stability depends. The closure or blockade of this strategic chokepoint would cause immediate repercussions on international markets, causing oil, gas, and maritime shipping prices to skyrocket. For this reason, the Gulf monarchies are intensifying their diplomatic efforts to prevent the standoff from escalating into open conflict.
The geopolitical context surrounding the negotiations involves the entire geopolitical landscape of Southwest Asia. Among the conditions put forward by the United States is reportedly the accession of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Agreements, the process promoted by Washington to facilitate the normalization of relations between Israel and various Muslim countries.
According to U.S. President Donald Trump, expanding the agreement would serve both to ease regional tensions and to secure a scaling back of Iran’s nuclear program. However, the White House’s strategy has already encountered strong resistance: Pakistan has formally rejected the proposal and stated that it does not wish to join the initiative, emphasizing the need to keep negotiations with Iran separate from issues related to the normalization of relations with Tel Aviv. Despite this, several international observers believe that Trump is attempting to present the agreement with Tehran as a political extension of the Abraham Accords, thereby transforming its potential success into a diplomatic victory that can be leveraged domestically in the United States.
At the same time, the role of Israel and Hezbollah in the Middle East remains central. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced an intensification of military operations in southern Lebanon, increasing the risk of a war on multiple fronts. According to several analysts, Tel Aviv is attempting to exert indirect pressure on the negotiations between the United States and Iran precisely through the escalation in Lebanon, out of fear that a potential compromise could strengthen Tehran’s influence in the region. Tensions are also fueled by internal divisions within the Israeli government: members of the radical wing of Netanyahu’s coalition, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, continue to advocate a hardline stance, rejecting any agreement that might reduce the Jewish state’s strategic superiority.
Egypt’s role is also coming to the fore in this scenario. During a meeting with his Iranian counterpart Massoud Pezeshkian, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi expressed Cairo’s willingness to facilitate a memorandum of understanding aimed at restoring stability. Al-Sisi, however, reiterated Egypt’s firm opposition to any interference in the sovereignty of the Gulf states, and Cairo reaffirmed its support for the principles of international law as the only possible basis for a lasting solution.
Despite these efforts, the framework upon which a possible agreement between the United States and Iran would rest remains deeply unstable. Military pressures, vetoes by regional actors, and parallel conflicts affecting Israel, Lebanon, and the Gulf states continue to shape the prospects for peace. In this context, stability appears to be linked not only to the strategic interests of the superpowers but also to their actual ability to guarantee the fundamental pillars of the international order, such as respect for territorial sovereignty and the principle of non-interference.Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026