April 20, 2026

The Iran-US ceasefire expires on Wednesday. Yet, there is still some uncertainty regarding the second round of the “peace negotiations” in Islamabad. The past ten days have seen intense diplomatic activity, Trump’s flurry of comments and threats, Iran’s defiant statements and vows of retaliation, the IMF’s warning that disruptions to oil markets could slow global growth, and further strains in transatlantic relations. Moreover, it now appears that, for Washington and Tehran, the “marketing of a deal” has also become an important issue, with both sides fighting to win the edge. Thus, the Middle East’s fortune-tellers are at a loss.

After returning to Washington, Vance said negotiators “made a ton of progress” in Pakistan, but Trump does not want to make a “small deal”; he wants to make the “grand bargain”.

Both Iran and Washington are now under domestic and international pressure to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic. Iran has suffered death, devastation, and a huge economic loss. The world, and the majority of Americans, for a multitude of reasons, want to see the end of this war started by Israel and the US.

According to the reporting on the talks, mostly attributed to “officials”, the top issue remains the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Broadly speaking, Washington wants Tehran to forget about its nuclear program, but it knows that this is impossible. Reportedly, the US wants Iran to stop enriching for twenty years, while Iran has agreed to only five. Trump now says that Iran would never be allowed to enrich.

As for 400kg of “buried” highly enriched uranium, there seem to be two ways to tackle the problem. The first option is sending the stockpile to a third party. Russia, last Monday, reiterated its readiness to take in Iran’s enriched uranium as part of a future peace deal. It is understood that Moscow would then dilute the uranium to lower levels compatible with civilian purposes and return it, or some of it, to Iran. The second option is diluting the stockpile in Iran under strict IAEA supervision. Tehran will never agree to sending it to the US.     

Such a compromise would allow Iran to say, as before, that it never intended to have a nuclear weapon to start with, but is determined to continue with its civilian program. And Trump would be able to claim that he has prevented Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The Trump administration wants to limit Iran’s military capabilities, especially its missile program. There are examples of disarming the enemy after its total defeat. After World War II, both Germany and Japan were disarmed. However, the initial focus on disarmament shifted due to the Cold War, leading to the rearmament of West Germany to counter the Soviet Union. In Japan’s case, the Cold War and the Korean War led to change.

The war waged by Israel and the US against Iran has not led to the total defeat of the latter, and Tehran will categorically reject any measure of disarmament, since Israel, its number one enemy, is a nuclear power. With failed examples, a non-aggression pact is not in the cards. However, if the parties were to agree on “lasting peace”,  Iran may then agree to review its links with the “Axis of Resistance”. The ten-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon announced by Trump might help an Iran-US deal, provided that Netanyahu agrees to it.

Turning to the problem of Hormuz, at its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 nautical miles wide, covering the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of both Iran and Oman. Thus, under customary international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the right of “innocent passage” for all States also applies to the Strait of Hormuz. This does not prevent the two countries from taking measures to ensure the safe and orderly passage of ships through the Strait; however, they cannot block traffic arbitrarily or impose passage fees.

Ships of countries that are not parties to a military conflict also enjoy the right of innocent passage through international straits in wartime. In the case of Hormuz, Israel and the US are warring parties. Whether the Gulf states belong to this category may be a controversial topic. For Tehran, they obviously are.

The Israel-US attacks on Iran and the US blockade of the Strait constitute violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Last week, despite the ceasefire and Trump’s optimistic remarks, Netanyahu said that Israel is ready for the Iran war to resume. And Hegseth threatened attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure if its leaders did not agree to a peace deal, stressing that  the American naval blockade of Iranian ports would continue “as long as it takes.”   

Tehran’s declaration of the Strait of Hormuz open to all commercial vessels was a positive development. However, the US blockade of Iran’s ports prompted Tehran to reverse its decision to unblock the strategic channel as part of negotiations with Washington. The news of two Indian ships coming under Iranian fire and the seizure of an Iranian-flagged cargo ship by the US Navy followed Iran’s reversal. In other words, at this stage, Tehran and Washington appear more than ready to go tit for tat. Yet, in a message to Israel and the US signaling its support for the continuation of the ceasefire, Iran reopened six airports to air traffic, including Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran.

European leaders gathered in Paris on Friday and proposed a multinational “defensive mission” to restore shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Their objective seems to be unhindered passage through the Strait as in the past. Under the present circumstances, such an initiative is unlikely to appeal to Washington or Tehran.

For a long time, including the talks in Islamabad, Iran has demanded the lifting of sanctions and the release of Iran’s frozen assets. Washington, considering Iran’s economic difficulties before the war and the devastation the Iranian economy has suffered since February 28, probably believes that this is its major card in the negotiation process. Provided that he gets satisfactory compromises on other issues, Trump can be generous on this item. After all, this would be paying for peace with Iran’s money.

Trump recently said that he believes China got ​Iran to negotiate a ceasefire, ​and the Chinese ​Foreign Ministry mentioned Beijing’s ​efforts for lasting ​peace in the Middle East. However, with the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, China’s oil imports from Iran have stopped. Consequently, Beijing has become more vocal with its frustration with the current picture.

Around 34% of the world’s seaborne crude oil trade transits through the Strait, 80% destined for Asia. Asian markets are the main destination of Qatari and UAE LNG. In 2025, almost 90% of the total volume exported via the Strait of Hormuz was destined for the Asian market.[i]

90% of Iran’s annual trade passes through Hormuz. Oil and gas account for 80% of Iran’s exports, and almost 90% of Iran’s oil exports go to China.

During recent visits by Prime Ministers Starmer and Sanchez to China, President Xi Jinping warned of the risk of the world reverting to the “law of the jungle.” Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesman has called the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz a “dangerous and irresponsible move.”

Interestingly, President Macron’s visit in December of last year was also followed by visits from Ireland’s Prime Minister Martin, Finland’s Prime Minister Orpo,  Canada’s Prime Minister Carney, and Germany’s Chancellor Merz.

During all these visits, President Xi consistently pointed out that unilateralism, protectionism, and power politics are running rampant. The international order is under great strain. International law can be truly effective only when all countries abide by it, uphold true multilateralism, safeguard the UN-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, and promote an equal and orderly multipolar world. Thus, China’s public discourse on global order, particularly when compared to Washington’s unpredictability, is having a positive impression on the international audience.

Last week, Chancellor Merz spoke by phone with Netanyahu. Later on X, the Chancellor’s account shared the following message: “I made it clear: There must be no de facto annexation of the West Bank.” He is not the only one.

In brief, the Israeli-US attacks on Iran have led European leaders to become more critical of Trump and Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Yet, Netanyahu knows that once the war with Iran is over, most of  that  remain in the past.

President Trump’s trip to China was initially scheduled for March 31-April 2. Later, it was delayed to 14-15 May, due to the Israel-US war with Iran.

Hopefully, the Strait of Hormuz will be open by then.

[i] https://www.iea.org/about/oil-security-and-emergency-response/strait-of-hormuz