norhan abo elfetoh 

The Middle East is currently undergoing a highly complex phase of political and security shifts, marked by ongoing armed conflicts involving multiple actors and a tangled web of regional and international interests. Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement on April 8, 2026 of a temporary truce between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other—brokered by Pakistan—offered only limited prospects for de-escalation. However, the subsequent breakdown of talks hosted by Pakistan, along with Trump’s announcement of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, highlighted the depth of the structural divisions preventing a lasting ceasefire.In this context, a range of complex challenges intersect, most notably the divergent strategic agendas of regional actors, accumulated mutual distrust between the parties to the conflict, and the influence of international dynamics that continue to shape negotiations in line with global balances of power. Domestic conditions in the countries involved—whether political, economic, or social—also play a decisive role in undermining prospects for a sustainable settlement.Diverging AgendasA number of obstacles continue to constrain regional and international efforts to reach a durable ceasefire agreement, most notably the following:1. Sharp Divergence in Strategic Interests: Negotiations hosted by Pakistan—whether conducted directly or through a broader mediation framework involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—have so far struggled to produce tangible results due to significant divergence in the priorities and interests of the parties involved, with each actor seeking to safeguard its own strategic objectives. On the one hand, Iran remains focused on preserving its regional influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen through its on-the-ground networks, as well as protecting its nuclear program. By contrast, the United States seeks to guarantee Israel’s security, maintain its strategic superiority, secure energy flows, and impose constraints on Iran’s military capabilities. Israel, meanwhile, prioritizes neutralizing both direct and indirect Iranian threats, maintaining military deterrence, and preventing any agreement that would ease restrictions on Iran or expand its influence. These clashing priorities render any potential agreement inherently fragile. The interdependence of multiple issues—such as regional security, energy, and military capabilities—further complicates mediation efforts and makes outcomes temporary and vulnerable to collapse.2. Persistent Distrust and Strategic Hesitation: The absence of mutual trust remains a central constraint on mediation efforts. Deep-seated suspicions regarding the intentions of all parties have turned negotiations into tools of political maneuvering rather than genuine pathways toward sustainable solutions. Parties remain reluctant to commit fully to agreements for fear of violations by others, leading to prolonged deadlock.This dynamic has been evident in previous conflicts, such as in Lebanon and Gaza, where ceasefire agreements collapsed within hours or days due to continued escalation—patterns that repeated themselves again in this conflict following Trump’s truce announcement.3. Regional Proxies Undermining De-escalation Efforts: Iran-aligned armed groups—often referred to as part of the "Axis of Resistance"—continue to exert direct influence over the trajectory of de-escalation efforts. The conflict is no longer confined to state actors but extends to a network of non-state actors possessing independent military capabilities and operational decision-making that may not fully align with official political strategies.This multiplicity of power centers represents a major challenge to achieving a lasting ceasefire. Escalation by any of these actors can derail negotiations, particularly given differences in their local and regional priorities and varying levels of coordination with Iran’s broader strategy.The situation between Lebanon and Israel provides a clear illustration of this complexity. Hezbollah plays a central role in both escalation and de-escalation dynamics. Recent negotiations have shown that any understandings remain highly fragile, given the risk of field-level escalation resulting from mutual strikes or border incidents. The failure to directly include such actors in collective negotiations, despite their influence, constitutes a structural gap in the de-escalation process and complicates efforts to ensure sustained compliance with any agreement.4. Complexity of the Nuclear Issue: The nuclear issue remains one of the most sensitive and contentious elements in U.S.-Iran relations. Washington views Iran’s nuclear program as going beyond peaceful purposes and posing a direct threat to regional and international security, while Tehran insists on its right to develop a civilian nuclear program under international law.Tensions have intensified following Trump’s statements on April 12, 2026 accusing Iran of failing to adhere to the negotiation agenda relating to Iran’s nuclear program, noting that Tehran remains unwilling to abandon its nuclear ambitions after nearly 20 hours of talks in Islamabad. This fundamental divide complicates ceasefire efforts, as the United States insists on linking military de-escalation to tangible concessions on the nuclear issue, while Iran rejects such linkage as an attempt to impose broader political conditions. From Washington’s perspective, this is seen as an effort by Tehran to use negotiations as a means of buying time while continuing&nbsp;to develop its technical capabilities.5. Israel’s Determination to Topple the Iranian Regime: Israel’s stated objective of toppling the Iranian regime constitutes a major obstacle to de-escalation efforts, particularly as it coincides with ongoing negotiation tracks. Statements by Mossad Director David Barnea on April 14, 2026 emphasized that operations would continue inside Iran and that the mission would not be complete without regime change. This reflects a commitment to a high escalation ceiling that goes beyond mere deterrence or degradation of capabilities.This position aligns with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that the military campaign is not yet over—thus highlighting the difficulty of achieving a sustainable ceasefire under such conditions.6. Absence of Enforcement Mechanisms and Guarantees: The lack of binding enforcement mechanisms and clear guarantees remains a critical obstacle to sustaining de-escalation. Current understandings rely largely on broad political formulations without concrete implementation tools or effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance.In this context, Iran has demanded guarantees to prevent it from being targeted in the future. Alongside the temporary truce, Tehran proposed a ten-point framework emphasizing the need for clear commitments and assurances. This reflects growing recognition among the parties that the absence of credible guarantees has been a primary reason behind the collapse of previous ceasefire agreements, making robust enforcement mechanisms a prerequisite for any durable settlement.7. Ongoing Military Preparations for Renewed Conflict: Continued military movements by the parties indicate that the region remains in a state of active readiness for renewed hostilities despite ongoing de-escalation efforts. Statements by senior U.S. and Israeli officials suggest that military options remain on the table and another round of escalation may kick off at any time. Trump’s statement on April 15, 2026 that he does not intend to extend the truce with Iran, alongside remarks by his vice president emphasizing that distrust between Washington and Tehran cannot be resolved "overnight," further underscores this reality.At the same time, U.S. military deployments in the region continue as both a deterrent and a preparatory measure, with reports indicating plans to send additional troops to the Middle East. This reinforces the likelihood of a post-truce escalation scenario, particularly amid ongoing Israeli strikes in Lebanon and continued clashes with Hezbollah forces. Iran, for its part, continues to signal its readiness for potential confrontation, particularly in response to the U.S. naval blockade &nbsp;of the Strait of Hormuz, which it considers a violation of the truce.Managing ConflictOverall, recent developments in the Middle East suggest that conflict management has effectively replaced conflict resolution as a temporary alternative, given the inability of the parties to reach a comprehensive settlement addressing the root causes of the crisis. Despite multiple diplomatic initiatives and the announcement of a temporary truce, these efforts remain constrained by low expectations due to the complexity of overlapping issues and the broader conflict environment.Recent developments—from Trump’s truce announcement to the breakdown of talks in Pakistan—underscore that the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms, combined with the continued politicization of sensitive issues—most notably the nuclear dispute—continues to limit the prospects for achieving a lasting peace.

What Are the Sticking Points to a Lasting Ceasefire in the Gulf?