US-Iran closing in on deal to end war: Trump says it could reopen Hormuz • FRANCE 24 English

Key Concepts

• Strategic Calculus: The decision-making process used by nations to evaluate the costs and benefits of military or diplomatic actions.
• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint for global oil transit, the control of which serves as a primary leverage point for Iran.
• Strategic Deterrence: The use of military capability to prevent an adversary from taking specific actions; in this context, the U.S. ability to influence Iran through the threat of force.
• Abraham Accords: A series of agreements normalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE.
• Detente: The easing of hostility or strained relations between countries.

---

1. Assessment of U.S.-Iran Negotiations

Jennifer Gavito, a former U.S. State Department official, argues that the ongoing negotiations represent a "cutting of losses" for the Trump administration.

• Current Status: Both parties acknowledge progress, which suggests an eventual agreement is likely. However, the fact that final details remain unresolved indicates that the most contentious issues—specifically Iran’s nuclear program and missile development—are still being negotiated.
• U.S. Objectives: The administration is seeking a "strategic victory" to justify the conflict, primarily focusing on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing minor concessions on the nuclear front.
• Iranian Objectives: Iran is primarily seeking sanctions relief and economic stabilization.

2. Evaluation of U.S. Military Strategy

Gavito asserts that the U.S. campaign has not gone according to plan.

• Tactical vs. Strategic Success: While the U.S. achieved tactical and military successes, it failed to achieve its strategic goals. The conflict has not led to Iranian capitulation or a fundamental change in the regime's behavior.
• Erosion of Deterrence: A significant consequence of the conflict is the degradation of U.S. strategic deterrence. The "back-pocket" option of using military force to reshape the Middle East has been exhausted, proving that military action alone is insufficient to force regime change.
• The "To What End?" Argument: Gavito questions the utility of continued threats of military strikes, noting that further open conflict would likely yield "very little" in terms of tangible strategic outcomes.

3. The Precarious Position of Gulf States

The conflict has left Gulf nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) in a vulnerable position.

• Regional Security: Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global commerce and strike at the heart of Gulf strategic objectives. Regardless of the deal, Iran retains the capability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz.
• Divergent Responses:
  • UAE: Has doubled down on ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords, signaling a shift toward deeper military and intelligence cooperation with Israel and the U.S.
  • Saudi Arabia: Remains skeptical of Iran and faces a difficult path toward detente in a post-conflict reality.
• Immediate Priorities: Gulf states are currently focused on restoring energy production, projecting stability to attract international investment, and encouraging the return of expatriate populations.

4. Synthesis and Conclusion

The analysis concludes that the current diplomatic efforts are a pragmatic retreat for the United States rather than a triumph of policy. The conflict has fundamentally altered the regional landscape, leaving the U.S. with diminished leverage and the Gulf states in a more precarious security environment. The primary takeaway is that military force has proven ineffective at compelling Iranian capitulation, forcing the U.S. to settle for a face-saving agreement that restores the status quo ante—specifically the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—rather than achieving the transformative strategic goals initially envisioned.