The war over Hormuz must not replace the fight against a nuclear Iran - opinion

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington was notably absent of a joint press statement and photo opportunity with US President Donald Trump. This omission is significant for Netanyahu, especially with Israeli elections approaching, and underscores growing US sensitivity to Israeli attempts to shape its policy on Iran.

The current situation between Iran and the United States is characterized by a de facto ceasefire, which signifies a stalemate rather than an end to the confrontation. Neither Washington nor Tehran appears ready to accept a low-intensity conflict stemming from differing interpretations of a memorandum of understanding, yet both are hesitant to engage in full-scale war.

Within both Tehran and Washington, competing strategies are vying for influence. In Iran, one faction believes an agreement is necessary to alleviate economic pressure and ensure regime survival. Conversely, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other hardline elements are committed to a narrative of victory, asserting that Iran can achieve military gains against the US and Gulf states to improve its strategic position.

A similar debate unfolds in Washington, where proponents of negotiation aim to end the current conflict and minimize further costs for Trump. Meanwhile, hawkish elements argue that increased military pressure is the only path to a more favorable agreement, not necessarily seeking total war but limited military actions to bolster leverage at the negotiating table. The asymmetrical nature of decision-making, with Iran's multiple power centers dominated by the IRGC and the US decision resting primarily with Trump, adds complexity to the situation.