Negotiation is being spoken of constantly, yet a meaningful settlement has rarely been farther away. In an existential war, talks are not a neutral return to reason. They become another theatre of the conflict itself. That is the central reality of the current war involving Iran, Israel and the US. For Tehran, entering negotiations before altering the regional balance of power – especially in relation to Israel and the Gulf monarchies – would not mean peace. It would mean formalising vulnerability. For Donald Trump, de-escalation is not a cost-free option either. A war tied to Hormuz, Gulf infrastructure and energy prices cannot simply be paused without looking like strategic retreat.
This is why both sides now speak the language of diplomacy while behaving according to the logic of escalation. What is called negotiation in these conditions is not diplomacy after war. It is armed diplomacy inside war, shaped by battlefield realities, economic coercion and political time.
Negotiation without leverage
The most important mistake in reading this war is to assume that Tehran is rejecting negotiation in principle. It is not. Tehran is rejecting a negotiation that would codify the imbalance exposed by war. Before the conflict, a bargain might have been imagined over sanctions, nuclear constraints and regional de-escalation. After the war began, the meaning of negotiation changed. What Iran now sees on the table is something harsher: accept military pressure, surrender key deterrent tools, and trust that the same regional order which failed to protect it will suddenly guarantee its security.
From Tehran’s perspective, that is not diplomacy. It is disarmament under fire. A state that believes itself to be in an existential confrontation cannot negotiate away the instruments it now regards as the minimum conditions of survival. Recent mediation reports point in the same direction: Tehran is demanding guarantees against renewed attacks and refusing any bargain that strips away its remaining deterrent tools. This matters even more because the strategic picture now extends beyond Israel to the Gulf monarchies.
The issue is not whether Iran can stop the bombing. It is whether any post-war arrangement would leave Israel with escalation dominance, the Gulf with a US-backed security shield, and Iran with fewer missiles, less maritime leverage and weaker regional reach than before. A negotiation entered under those terms would not end the war’s logic. It would institutionalise it.
Time as a weapon
This is why Tehran’s wartime method has centred on time. Iran knows that a classical victory over a US-Israeli coalition is not realistic. Its task is different: not to win decisively, but to prevent decisive defeat and to shift the war into a political and economic contest its adversaries find harder to sustain.
In that sense, attrition is not a fate for Tehran. It is an instrument. Iran’s aim is to turn prolonged conflict into a machine for redistributing costs – against shipping, insurance, energy markets, Gulf infrastructure and, ultimately, the domestic political patience of the United States. Controlled disruption in and around Hormuz is therefore not simply retaliation. It is leverage. The goal is to raise the price of continuation so steadily that the other side begins to search for an exit before Iran’s own losses become strategically irreversible.
READ: Iran says 281 students, teachers killed in US-Israeli attacks
This logic explains why Tehran can absorb punishment while still resisting an early bargain. A premature settlement would freeze the war at the point of maximum asymmetry, when Israel and Washington still hold the initiative and the Gulf order remains aligned against Iran.
Tehran therefore needs time to alter the negotiation itself – not by achieving battlefield symmetry, but by changing the distribution of vulnerability, cost and fear. In this war, the side that tires later has the better chance of shaping the ceasefire.
The Gulf trap
Before this war, Tehran saw the confrontation as existential. Now the Gulf monarchies, even if they do not experience it in the same ideological register, increasingly face it as a system-threatening crisis. Their ports, desalination plants, energy grids, LNG facilities and shipping corridors are no longer distant assets in a protected order. They have become exposed nodes in a war economy.
That produces a contradiction. The Gulf states fear uncontrolled escalation because they would pay an enormous price for it. But the regional order many of them still prefer also presumes a weakened Iran and a durable Israeli-US security advantage. In other words, they want the war contained, but not in a way that leaves Tehran politically or strategically vindicated.
For Tehran, this is exactly the problem. Any negotiation that merely stops the shooting while preserving the same hierarchy of insecurity will be read not as settlement, but as postponement – a pause before the next round, only from a worse position. A state that believes it is fighting for survival will not voluntarily sign the document that prepares its future defeat.
READ: Iran says US seeking to achieve war goals via 15-point plan after military failure
Trump’s narrowing corridor
Trump is not escalating simply because he prefers war. He is being pushed towards escalation by the structure of the war he has already chosen. Once the White House tied American credibility to reopening Hormuz, disciplining Iran and restoring deterrence, a quiet pause became politically dangerous. Every limited strike that fails to break Tehran generates pressure for a stronger one. In this sense, escalation becomes the child of incomplete escalation.
This is the strategic trap now surrounding Trump. If he steps back too early, he risks appearing weak before allies, markets and his own political base. If he escalates too far, he moves closer to the quagmire he was elected to avoid. The deployment of additional forces, the discussion of maritime control, and the constant signalling of “all options” are not signs of strategic freedom. They are signs of a narrowing corridor.
That is why current diplomacy has such a performative quality. Washington wants the optics of negotiation without conceding the coercive architecture of the war. Tehran wants the space generated by diplomacy without accepting the terms of strategic reduction. Both sides are using talks tactically, but neither can yet convert them into a durable political settlement.
The bottom line
Negotiation has not disappeared. It has been colonised by the war itself. For Tehran, meaningful talks require a prior shift in the regional balance of power – not necessarily a dramatic military reversal, but a visible change in who can impose costs and who must absorb them. Without that shift, negotiation is simply the legal language of defeat.
For Trump, the opposite problem applies. He cannot easily de-escalate before producing a visible result, because the war has fused his political credibility with coercive success. That is why he speaks of talks while expanding military options. He is not choosing freely between diplomacy and force. He is trying to use each to rescue the other.
This is the real impasse. Iran cannot negotiate before altering the balance, and Trump cannot pause before showing that escalation has worked. So long as those two logics remain intact, every new round of talks will generate not peace, but another ladder of pressure. In an existential war, diplomacy without balance is not a solution. It is only another name for surrender, and neither side believes it can afford that yet.
READ: Hebrew media: Iran sets five conditions to end war with US and Israel
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
