SAEDNEWS: Negotiation and Ceasefire Talk Rises in the West, While Iranians Show No Urgency for a Truce
According to SaedNews political service, quoting Fars News Agency, what is happening in the region today can no longer be described as merely a “rising tension.” We are facing a new type of war—one that is not purely military but also involves significant economic and political pressures. In this environment, negotiations and conflict proceed simultaneously. Therefore, the key question is no longer when the war will end, but which side will control the course of the conflict and the terms of its conclusion.
On the surface, the United States appears to be seeking a diplomatic path. Reports in Western and Israeli media about potential meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials fall within this framework. At first glance, this seems like an attempt to reduce tensions, but in reality, it reflects Washington’s recognition that continuing the conflict carries heavy costs. In simple terms, the U.S. is less focused on easing tensions than on finding a way out of the current situation.
Here is an important reality:
Iran is trying to manage time to its advantage, while the U.S. is caught in crisis management.
Iran seeks to prolong the conflict in a controlled way, using time as leverage. The longer the war lasts, the more opportunities it gains for negotiation. This explains why senior Israeli officials have told the Hebrew site Ynet that the Iranians are in no rush for a ceasefire.
By contrast, the U.S. faces the opposite problem: the passage of time increases its costs without producing concrete results. This explains why it talks about de-escalation on one hand while preparing to continue the conflict on the other.
This is also where former President Trump’s rhetoric makes sense. He sought—though often clumsily—to craft a narrative of victory to present to Republican voters. Later, he threatened attacks on energy infrastructure and war crimes to try to pressure Iran, and when that failed, he pushed for negotiations as another way to manage the situation.
Overall, this reflects more the absence of a clear plan than a calculated strategy. The initial objective—regime collapse in Iran—has failed, leaving the remaining military, political, and media maneuvers aimed at managing the situation and exiting the conflict with dignity.
On the Iranian side, however, the strategy appears more coordinated. Statements linking the end of the war to the lifting of sanctions and reparations indicate that Iran views the conflict as a tool for achieving political and economic goals, not an end in itself.
Regionally, some countries are working to prevent the conflict from expanding. Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan have become active because they understand that ongoing instability could fundamentally alter the region. Reports indicate extensive contacts between these countries, Iran, and the U.S. to manage the situation. Any future reduction in tension is likely to result from multilateral pressure rather than unilateral decisions.
Inside Israel, the situation is also becoming more complex. Pressure on the northern front has intensified, and threats have reached critical areas, challenging Israel’s deterrence system. Signs of domestic dissatisfaction and tension are also emerging, which are likely to grow as the conflict drags on, complicating decision-making further.
Israel’s security strategy now faces serious challenges. Military and technological superiority alone is no longer sufficient, especially against an opponent with flexible tactics and multiple active fronts. As a result, Israel seems to have shifted from seeking a “quick and decisive victory” to “managing a prolonged conflict,” the outcome of which remains highly uncertain.
Economically, the conflict’s impact extends beyond the region. Attacks on energy infrastructure and threats to shipping lanes could disrupt global markets and push prices higher. With supply chain problems already affecting the global economy, continuing instability will add further pressure.
In sum, the old order in the region is changing. Previous strategies—reliance on military power or unilateral deterrence—no longer suffice. The U.S. remains in the region but can no longer control events alone. Iran, meanwhile, is not seeking a rapid military victory but aims to gradually reshape the rules of the game.
