Will Trump resolve the Iran war at the negotiating table?

US President Donald Trump opened the door to a new phase of negotiations and bargaining to end the war with Iran, after he spoke of “positive momentum” following his meeting with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani at the White House, on Monday, and said that the war had effectively ended “militarily speaking.”

But American optimism was not accompanied by a lifting of the naval blockade or economic concessions to Tehran, which puts the Qatari mediation before a complex test that fluctuates between converting the declared willingness to negotiate into an agreement, or whether diplomacy remains a tool to improve positions before a new round of confrontation.

Trump said, in a surprise appearance in the press briefing room, that resuming large-scale operations is not necessary now, but that American forces are ready to move if circumstances change. The Qatari Prime Minister described his talks with Trump and his deputy, J.D. Vance, as “positive.”

In exclusive statements to Asharq Al-Awsat, John Alterman, Chair of the Brzezinski Chair for Global Security and Geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, pointed out a discrepancy in the assessment of the chances of a settlement.

While Alterman believes that Trump has not decided on his options, and suggests close understandings between Iran and its neighbors, Dubowitz warns that Tehran will exploit the US President's desire to end the war to obtain concessions that would allow it to rebuild its military capabilities.

Negotiating under threat

Alterman believes that Trump's optimism does not mean that he is abandoning military pressure. He said: “The president believes that the only way to get a good deal with Iran is to make clear that he is ready to go to war again.” “The Iranians believe that the only way to get a good deal with the president is to show that they are not afraid of anything the United States can do to them.”

For his part, Dubowitz believes that Trump faces the risk of giving up early. He said: “Trump wants an agreement, but Tehran sees his desire to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, especially after the Republican losses in the midterm elections, as an opportunity to extract concessions without fundamentally changing its behavior.” He added: “I still strongly doubt that the Iranian regime is negotiating in good faith. “Tehran has repeatedly used diplomacy to buy time, obtain sanctions relief, and maintain its nuclear and military capabilities.”

He said that Trump's strongest cards are "the credible threat to use overwhelming military force, coupled with maximum economic pressure, and support for the Iranians when they return to the streets." He warned against wasting it in exchange for an agreement that allows the Iranian regime “to survive, reorganize its ranks, and rearm.”

Tehran signals

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had said that the Supreme Leader had issued directives to end the situation of “no war, no peace.” But Alterman was reluctant to read this as a decisive shift. “I don’t know if anyone can speak reliably on behalf of the Supreme Leader,” he said, “and the Iranian president is not the first person I have turned to within leadership circles to understand what the Supreme Leader wants.”

Dubowitz warned against “confusing the state of despair that the Iranian regime is going through with moderation.” He said that Tehran may make tactical concessions, including temporary restrictions on enrichment, limited inspections and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, without necessarily abandoning its nuclear ambitions or regional policies.

Dubowitz set five tests for any serious agreement: Iran giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantling the enrichment infrastructure, accepting a strict inspection regime, imposing restrictions on the ballistic missile program, and ceasing to use maritime navigation as a tool for pressure.

“Anything less than that risks repeating the mistakes of previous agreements,” he said. “Tehran wants to ease sanctions and obtain security guarantees, while maintaining the capabilities that threaten its neighbors.”

Will Trump choose to end the war?

Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are involved, to varying degrees, in communications. The mediators are discussing a phased proposal that begins with easing the blockade and releasing part of the frozen Iranian funds, in exchange for a visit by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to the damaged nuclear facilities, in preparation for reopening Hormuz and negotiating enriched uranium. But Washington wants nuclear guarantees before abandoning its pressure tools, and Tehran is demanding an end to the blockade and an easing of sanctions first.

“The president’s team is presenting him with options, and I don’t see any indications that he has chosen any of them,” Alterman said. The president likes to keep his options open, and this is what I expect to continue during the coming period.” He added: “It is likely that we will witness reaching some kind of understanding in the near term between Iran and its neighbors, and that the United States will not try to undermine it.”

Dubowitz warned against any interim agreement that provides significant relief for sanctions, releases Iranian funds, or reduces maritime pressure, in exchange for temporary pledges that can be retracted. He said: “A bad agreement will be worse than no agreement.” The goal must not simply be to end the current standoff, but to ensure that Iran cannot use a new diplomatic pause to rebuild the capabilities that led the region to war.

Trump wants to end the war from the position of the victor, and Iran seeks to lift the blockade without abandoning the tools of deterrence that it considers a guarantee of its survival. Between the two goals, the battle of conditions begins, which will determine whether the “positive momentum” is a prelude to an agreement or merely a truce that precedes a new confrontation.

Hindi is still in. Pandeselvi, the mother of sailor Naveen Kumar, clings to the hope of the return of her son, whom she has not heard from in more than six months, and cries as she replays his old voice messages.

Kumar was one of six crew members on two Tehran-linked cargo ships that were last seen in Iranian waters in May before they disappeared. The fate of the two ships is still unknown, according to Reuters.

Commercial ships have been subjected to attacks since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war on Iran on February 28. Tehran attacked ships to impose its control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States, in turn, responded by targeting ships linked to Iran to impose a blockade on Iranian ports.

The United Nations' International Maritime Organization has confirmed that 130 "incidents" - most of them attacks - have occurred in the region since the outbreak of the conflict, resulting in the deaths of at least 25 sailors.

In her one-room house in the city of Dindigul in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, 45-year-old Pandeselvi told Reuters, barely trying to hold herself together: “We cannot bear this pain... One does not need someone to tell them what a parent is going through if they lose a child.” We appeal to all concerned to come forward and help us.”

Reuters spoke to sources in the shipping sector, Iraqi officials, and the families of the missing sailors in Basra, Iraq, and the state of Tamil Nadu, India, to reveal the human toll of the Strait of Hormuz attacks.

The family of Kumar (23 years old) took on heavy debts so that he could complete a marine course and realize his dream of working as a sailor, after which he traveled to work for six months as a sailor. Just one week later, he found himself in Iran, much to his family's dismay.

“Every minute is torture.”

Kumar's family was making desperate attempts to bring him home, and then radio communications were cut off.

“My psychological state deteriorated to the point of madness, and I sent desperate messages,” Pandiselvi said, adding that she was sending him voice messages without receiving any responses to a number she saved as “The Sailor Naveen” with an anchor emoji.

The family still keeps the line open, hoping their son will answer. A neighbor said that the mother was repeatedly listening to the messages while crying.

“There is a terrible question mark over his fate: Is he still on that ship, or has something terrible happened to him,” Pandiselvi said. It causes a lot of confusion. Every minute that passes is torture.”

Kumar had been dispatched to work on the ships Bridge 1 and Bridge 2, which disappeared around May 9. The two ships are not listed on the list of incidents registered with the International Maritime Organization.

Iraq announced in May that it was following up on the disappearance of the two ships that were flying the Bolivian flag. No distress signals were received.

Khaled Saad Al-Talbi, head of the Iraqi Maritime Corporation in Basra, told Reuters that the latest available information indicates that the automatic identification system for the two ships sent their last known location about eight nautical miles from the Iranian Kish Island on May 9 at 4:50 p.m.

He added from his office in Basra: “We contacted the agent in Iran, but he told us that he knew nothing about the incident, and the next day, Iranian search and rescue teams tried to search for the two ships, but they did not find anything.”

He stated: “We do not know whether the two ships sank or were detained by a country.”

The rest of the missing crew members are three Iraqis, one Pakistani, and one Indian.

Informed sources said that the two ships were participating in Iranian commercial activities and carrying steel.

No answers

Youssef Abdul Rahman Al-Mayahi said that his brother, the Iraqi sailor Haider Al-Mayahi (22 years old), was among the two crew members.

He told Reuters as he broke down in tears: “He left behind a one-year-old girl, and a father who suffered a stroke from grief over his disappearance.”

Al-Mayahi's family traveled to Iran in search of answers. They found the owner of the two ships, whom they knew only that he was Iranian, and he told them that he did not have any information about them.

The family received conflicting stories about the fate of the two ships. Some shipping sources reported that they may have been attacked by the United States and sank immediately, while other sources speculated that the two crews were detained by a country.

Kumar's family borrowed about 1.5 million Indian rupees ($16,000) for the young man to complete the naval training course, and is now suffering from financial hardship.

The family contacted the local agency that hired Kumar, Mumbai-based Laskar Marine, and initially received assurances that he would return soon. But later, agency employees informed the family that they had no information. The family stated that after that, their calls were not answered.

An order issued on May 22 and posted on a government website showed that India's Seafarers' Employment Bureau withdrew the employment license of Laskar Marine Services and banned its former and current managers from working in the maritime business for five years, citing repeated failures to repatriate seafarers - including Kumar - or pay their wages.

Ship crew members are usually contracted by agents such as Laskar Marine, and are employed on six-month contracts. Since the outbreak of the Iran War, the costs of employing seafarers have tripled, with many working for only one trip and the risks increasing.

One of the shipping company owners told Reuters that any sailor who joins the crew may earn in just two months what he normally would have achieved in seven months, and then choose to return to his country. As for the ship's captain, who is the highest-paid crew member, he earned between eight thousand and 13 thousand dollars a month before the war, but now he can earn three times that.

He added: “They ask for three months’ wages for each month, but after they see what the trip entails, they sometimes quit after one trip.” For Pandiselvi, Kumar’s mother, the lure of good pay no longer has any meaning.

She said: “We worked tirelessly to secure our children’s futures and jobs. Now, after seeing everything that happened, we wonder where our lives have reached?!

The Turkish Parliament has begun a move to establish a committee to monitor the work of the bodies and committees concerned with following up and confirming the end of the disarmament of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the steps that will follow to implement the “Law on Promoting National Solidarity and Social Integration,” known as the “Framework Law,” which was approved on August 10 last.

Amid criticism of the government and Parliament and accusations of freezing the “peace process” or what Ankara calls the “Terrorism-free Turkey process,” Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmus began, on Tuesday, a tour of the parties represented by parliamentary groups to discuss the formation of the committee that will include their representatives.

Kurtulmus will meet over a period of 3 days with the heads of the parties, or the heads of their parliamentary groups, to discuss the formation of the committee, the formation of which was scheduled to be announced with the start of the new parliamentary session on the first of last October, to discuss its formation and working mechanisms.

Movements to advance “peace”

Kurtulmus began his tour by meeting with the interim president of the Republican People's Party appointed by a judicial decision, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, and the heads of the parliamentary group of the "New Path" bloc, which includes the "Democracy and Progress" and "Happiness" parties, and independent representatives who were members of the "Future" party, which was headed by former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, before he took the decision to dissolve it last July.

Kurtulmuş's tour comes the day after statements by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which he affirmed that the "Terrorism-Free Turkey Operation" will continue until its goals are achieved. Erdogan commented on the allegations of stagnation in the process since Parliament approved the "Law on Promoting National Unity and Social Integration," stressing that no one should doubt the continuation of the process or feel any anxiety, because the state and the people have made their decision, and there will be no retreat from it.

Erdogan defined Turkey's priority in this operation, saying: "Our priority is for the (terrorist organization) (the Kurdistan Workers' Party) to complete its dissolution and hand over all its weapons, and for this to be determined and definitively confirmed by the relevant institutions, which are closely following the evacuation of the organization's shelters in northern Iraq according to a specific plan and continuing as planned."

He added that the “Monitoring, Follow-up and Integration Coordination Council,” which was formed to monitor disarmament and law enforcement, headed by its deputy, Cevdet Yilmaz, continues its work, and will form subcommittees soon.

In its first meeting, on August 24, the Council decided to form 4 committees emanating from it: “Judicial and Legal Coordination,” “Follow-up and Monitoring,” “Social Harmony and Integration,” and “Disarmament and Strategic Coordination.”

The Parliamentary Oversight Committee, to be formed, will follow up on the work of the Council and the work of state institutions concerned with implementing the framework law.

Kurdish criticism

A few days ago, Kurtulmus confirmed that the process that began to solve “the most important problem facing Turkey in the first century of the Republic’s history, which is the problem of terrorism,” will continue as a project for the Republic in the second century of its history, and not as a project for a single political party or group of parties, because it concerns every individual of the people, and it is an issue that completely transcends the limits of narrow party politics.

He said that Turkey paid a heavy price for the problem of terrorism, and went through difficult periods in which the hopes of its people were shattered, and scenarios of division and secession emerged in it, and that “Turkey free of terrorism” also means consolidating a “zone free of terrorism,” expressing his happiness to see serious steps starting to be taken in neighboring countries, especially Syria and Iraq, with regard to disarmament and establishing internal peace.

The leaders of the PKK, as well as the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democracy and Equality Party, criticize the Turkish government for not taking concrete steps to implement the "Framework Law," which includes legal guarantees for the return of PKK militants and their integration into society after confirming the end of the party's disarmament.

The co-chair of the “Democracy and Equality for Peoples” party, Tuncer Bakirhan, called on the government to stop dealing with the Kurdish issue from a purely security perspective, because it is not a security file, but rather an issue resulting from the absence of democracy, and its solution constitutes a very important way out to solve Turkey’s problems, from the economy to the law, and from health to politics.

Understanding with Iraq

In this context, Türkiye and Iraq renewed their joint commitment to continue steps to eliminate the presence of Kurdistan Workers' Party elements in northern Iraq.

The Presidency's Communications Department, in a statement on its account in X, praised the measures taken by the Iraqi authorities so far towards fully establishing state authority in Sinjar and eliminating elements of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (the terrorist), in accordance with the agreement reached by the leaders of the two countries on September 23 of last year.

The statement stated that, in accordance with the agreement, it will begin to take the necessary steps towards the gradual transfer of the “Bashiqa-Zilikan” base to the Iraqi government, with the activation of the joint security coordination committee, which the two countries decided to form two years ago, as previously agreed upon, to jointly verify the progress of the process that began in Sinjar and follow it up to completely eliminate the presence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.