Several pauses toward a potential peace agreement between the United States and Iran have taken place, even as intermittent flare-ups continue to erupt across the region. Yet any clear certainty about a durable peace still appears distant and deeply complicated. What is undeniable, however, is that the balance of physical power on the ground has changed dramatically. The Iran sitting at the negotiating table in Islamabad is no longer the Iran of previous years. After more than 13,000 strikes by the United States and Israel, Tehran’s defense-industrial capacity has suffered severe structural degradation.
Available assessments suggest that more than two-thirds of Iran’s missile and drone production facilities have been destroyed. Most strikingly, Iran’s navy has effectively been wiped out, with roughly 150 warships reportedly sunk, leaving Tehran increasingly reliant on asymmetric tactics such as naval mines and inland drone operations. In what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as a state of “functional neutrality,” diplomacy for Tehran is no longer merely a strategic option, but an instrument of survival.
Tensions reached another boiling point in early May 2026 when Donald Trump launched “Project Freedom,” an initiative aimed at breaking Iran’s de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the operation as a humanitarian mission intended to rescue thousands of stranded sailors. Tehran’s response was immediate and fierce.
Missile and drone strikes targeting the oil-industrial zone of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates demonstrated that even with its wings badly damaged, Iran still retains the capacity to inflict pain.
The strategy itself appeared calculated. By singling out the UAE, Iran attempted to exploit fractures among Gulf states while punishing Abu Dhabi for its growing security alignment with Israel. More fundamentally, the attack delivered a bloody warning to Washington and the broader Middle East: the Strait of Hormuz would not reopen without Tehran’s consent, regardless of the “freedom of navigation” narrative advanced by the United States and its strategic partners.
Then, in characteristic fashion, Trump abruptly shifted course through a post on Truth Social. Just days after unveiling “Project Freedom,” he suddenly announced its suspension, citing what he called “Great Progress” in negotiations. The move reflected Trump’s dualistic political persona, a leader willing to unleash overwhelming force if necessary, yet also a dealmaker constantly searching for a pathway toward a “final agreement.”
READ: Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says it attacked US destroyers with missiles, drones
The suspension reportedly came after pressure from Pakistan, the principal mediator in Islamabad, which signaled that Iran had shown new “flexibility.” Tehran was said to have softened its earlier demand that the United States first lift the naval blockade before negotiations could even begin. Instead, both sides now appear willing to pursue parallel tracks: discussions over reopening Hormuz moving simultaneously alongside gradual economic de-escalation.
Amid this diplomatic deadlock, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to Beijing on May 6, 2026, in what amounted to a balancing maneuver. Iran understands that it cannot rely solely on Trump’s volatile political instincts.
By meeting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Araghchi was attempting to secure a strategic anchor with China, the world’s largest oil importer and a country whose interests are deeply threatened by prolonged instability in the Gulf.
Beijing, for its part, has responded with characteristic pragmatism. China has openly called for a comprehensive ceasefire, acknowledged Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, and simultaneously urged the restoration of safe navigation through Hormuz. For China, stability in West Asia is inseparable from national energy security. For Iran, meanwhile, China represents a critical geopolitical insurance policy, a guarantor capable of ensuring that any future agreement with Washington carries meaningful international backing.
Unfortunately, the cautious optimism emerging from Islamabad has collided with grim realities on the Lebanese front. A dangerous disconnect has become increasingly visible between US-Iran negotiations and Israel’s military operations on the ground. Despite claims of a broader regional ceasefire, Israel launched “Operation Eternal Darkness” against Hezbollah. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firmly rejected the notion that any ceasefire with Iran should automatically extend to Lebanon.
Within just ten devastating minutes of strikes across Beirut and southern Lebanon, Israel demonstrated that it retains an independent security agenda it refuses to subordinate to Washington. The destruction in Lebanon, which has displaced more than one million people, has created a destabilizing variable capable of derailing the Islamabad negotiations at any moment.
For Tehran, abandoning Hezbollah in pursuit of a deal with the United States would amount to ideological betrayal. Yet continuing confrontation amid mounting domestic economic collapse could become political suicide.
Still, recent intelligence reports suggest that Trump’s much-publicized “Great Progress” may center on a one-page Memorandum of Understanding currently under serious consideration. The reported 14-point document seeks to bridge the enormous gap between Washington’s maximalist 15-point proposal and Tehran’s 10-point counterproposal demanding war reparations.
READ: Beijing extends support to Iran amid conflict with US ahead of Trump’s China trip
One of the most sensitive provisions reportedly involves a uranium enrichment moratorium lasting between 12 and 15 years, effectively a compromise between Washington’s demand for a 20-year freeze and Tehran’s offer of only five years. Discussions have also reportedly included the transfer of Iran’s uranium stockpiles abroad as a security guarantee for Israel. Should such an arrangement materialize, Islamabad may evolve from merely a temporary ceasefire venue into the crucible for a new geopolitical order in West Asia.
The chances of an agreement remain substantial, but extremely fragile. The prospect of permanently reopening the Strait of Hormuz is relatively high given both countries’ urgent need to stabilize global oil prices, which have already surpassed US$100 per barrel. Yet the nuclear issue remains the hardest obstacle of all. Hardline factions in Tehran, led by military figures such as Ahmad Vahidi, view nuclear capability as the regime’s ultimate insurance policy. Any nuclear concession, in their eyes, risks opening the path toward total collapse. Similar resistance exists in Washington, where Iran skeptics continue pressing Trump against easing sanctions prematurely.
Looking ahead, Islamabad will most likely produce only a “Frozen Conflict” arrangement. Direct hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz may cease, accompanied by a gradual lifting of the naval blockade, while proxy tensions in Lebanon and Syria continue to simmer. Such an outcome would provide a pragmatic solution for Trump, who seeks a diplomatic victory ahead of the midterm elections, and for Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who is desperate to rescue Iran’s economy from total collapse. Even so, a comprehensive peace capable of ending hostilities altogether still appears painfully out of reach, especially while the physical and psychological scars of “Operation Epic Fury” remain deeply embedded in the minds of Iran’s ruling elite.
In the end, Iran appears to be learning that its asymmetric capabilities have limits, while the United States is increasingly realizing that military victory without political resolution only invites uncontrollable global economic turmoil. Islamabad has therefore become both the venue and the moment where two wounded powers are attempting to define a way to coexist without destroying one another. Whether this one-page agreement can withstand nearly half a century of hostility, or whether it will simply become another document consumed by the next missile explosion in the Strait of Hormuz, will ultimately depend on time, and on the political courage of leaders in Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv.
OPINION: How St. Petersburg became Tehran’s last strategic lifeline
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
