THE ceasefire announced in April was supposed to create space for negotiations. Instead, it has been repeatedly tested by military confrontations. The latest and most serious exchange began with the downing of a US Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz and escalated into American strikes on Iranian military targets and retaliatory Iranian attacks on US bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. While both sides continue to speak of diplomacy, events are moving in the opposite direction. US President Donald Trump’s reaction leaves little doubt about the mood in Washington. Accusing Iran of taking too long to negotiate, he declared that Tehran would “pay the price” and warned of further military action. Iran, meanwhile, says it will reassess diplomatic engagement with the US, arguing that negotiations cannot proceed amid military attacks and alleged ceasefire violations. Neither side has formally abandoned diplomacy, but both appear determined to strengthen their positions through force.

For weeks, the Trump administration has insisted that a peace agreement is within reach. Yet every new military exchange chips away at that claim. Iran has responded to pressure by demonstrating that it can impose costs of its own, while Washington continues to believe that coercion can produce concessions. Such tactics will not create the trust needed for a durable settlement. Nor are the underlying disputes any closer to resolution. Washington wants unrestricted navigation through Hormuz and guarantees that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran, which denies seeking such a capability, demands sanctions relief and access to frozen assets. Adding to the tensions, the UN nuclear watchdog has pressed Iran to account for its enriched uranium stockpiles and permit broader inspections. Tehran has dismissed the move as political. Yet diplomacy cannot be written off entirely. Qatar’s continued mediation efforts suggest that regional actors still see room for dialogue. Equally important, neither Washington nor Tehran appears eager for a wider conflict. The economic consequences would be severe, while further instability around Hormuz would threaten global energy markets and regional security alike. That reality may preserve the possibility of a deal. But every exchange of fire narrows the political space for compromise and strengthens the view that pressure works better than diplomacy. The peace process remains alive. Whether it remains viable is a different question altogether.

Published in Dawn, June 11th, 2026