Signs displaying flags of the U.S, Pakistan and Iran, as Pakistan prepares to host the two countries for the second phase of peace talks in Islamabad, on April 18.WASEEM KHAN/Reuters
The United States and Iran are testing the truth behind the proverb that it is darkest just before dawn.
Because, as peace talks beckon, it is very dark right now. Iran has virtually shut the Strait of Hormuz. On Sunday, the United States attacked an Iranian cargo ship.
It seems like an inopportune moment for negotiations between two countries who have only suspended their battle or, to twist a popular aphorism, have decided to conduct it under different means. Or maybe it is an excellent opportunity for negotiations.
Here is a viewers’ guide to the issues the two countries will confront during talks – if not this week in Islamabad’s Serena Hotel then surely eventually – and the stakes involved in a conflict that is approaching the beginning of its third month:
Threats, counter-threats shaping current situation
Iran is threatening to “take the necessary action against the U.S. military” in retaliation for the attack on the tanker. U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to resume full military action, and to order an offensive to seize Iran’s nuclear material in an “unfriendly” manner, if negotiations don’t yield an agreement acceptable to the United States.
David Shribman: In Iran, the fog of war gives way to the smog of negotiations
Perhaps this signals a breakdown between the two countries. Or perhaps it positions them to de-escalate and move toward a resolution, or at least, an extension of the ceasefire.
A shard of light among the clouds: The remarks of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Monday that while Iran must resist “injustice and excessive demands,” a resumption of hostilities “benefits no one” and that if the management of the issues separating the two countries “can be managed through reason and in a calm environment:” it will “benefit everyone.” Mr. Trump has been optimistic about the prospects for ending the war.
Conflict has become battle over, and on, the seas
Right now the air war has been supplanted by a marine struggle. Iran’s position at the edge of the Strait is its strong card. The mighty U.S. Navy is settling into waters nearby and is projecting a different strain of strength.
“Because tanker transit through the Strait of Hormuz is the foundation of the global economy, a regional issue is also a global issue,” said Elizabeth Mendenhall, a professor in the University of Rhode Island’s Department of Marine Affairs. “But the long-term status of the Strait still must be resolved.”
David Shribman: Comparing the Iran war to other U.S. conflicts yields little of value
The confrontation at the mouth of the Strait is the immediate concern. But broader questions remain, especially whether the U.S. and Iran will permit free passage through those waters after negotiations; whether the coastal countries of Iran and Oman have special rights there; and whether a separate country outside the region can legally impose a blockade.
This question goes far beyond the Strait of Hormuz, with implications for the Strait of Gibraltar between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea and the Strait of Malacca between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.
Important factor: Neither the U.S. nor Iran has signed on to the international accord covering these matters.
Great implications if countries don’t meet, reach agreement
This would be a signal that the two have irreconcilable differences, a conclusion that would not surprise close observers of the situation, who are struggling to imagine a middle ground between a government that sees its nuclear project as a symbol of strength and sovereignty, and another that sees it as a threat to regional and world peace.
Reaching agreement may not end conflict
Mr. Trump almost certainly would issue a statement much like the one former U.S. president Richard Nixon sent to South Vietnamese leader Nguyen Van Thieu as peace talks solidified over the struggle in Southeast Asia, expressing “my absolute assurance that if Hanoi refuses to abide by the terms of the agreement, it is my intention to take swift and retaliatory action,” adding that the U.S. “will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam.”
David Shribman: This is what a Donald Trump with few friends and fewer options looks like
In the Vietnam case, the U.S. didn’t follow through. Mr. Trump almost certainly would.
Massive political factors at play in U.S.
Mr. Trump’s approval ratings are low. Vital midterm congressional elections are six months away, with control of both the Senate and House of Representatives in the balance.
Though former British prime minister Neville chamberlain, who is remembered as a Nazi appeaser in the run up to the Second World War, has a far different profile than Mr. Trump, it’s possible that the assessment Winston Churchill made about his predecessor has some validity for the U.S. President: “He ran into tides the force of which he could not measure, and met hurricanes from which he did not flinch, but with which he could not cope.”
Meanwhile, the stakes are especially high for Vice-President JD Vance, who resisted sending U.S. military personnel into battle in the first place and now is in the position of being the lead negotiator to end the struggle.
As Democrats begin to posture for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination – confidential manoeuvring broke out into the open in recent days with an important meeting in Michigan – Mr. Vance must consolidate his position as the heir apparent to Mr. Trump.