Endless proposals, no breakthrough: Why Trump can’t end Iran war he started

Dubai: Nearly 10 weeks into the Iran war, proposals continue to move back and forth between Washington and Tehran through Pakistani mediators, yet no final breakthrough has emerged — highlighting the widening gap between America’s military power and its ability to force a decisive political outcome.

The Trump administration is now awaiting Iran’s response to a one-page memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict and creating a framework for broader negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and the Strait of Hormuz.

Since February, at least six major proposals, ceasefire frameworks or draft understandings have been exchanged between Washington and Tehran through Omani and Pakistani mediation — yet no final settlement has emerged.

President Donald Trump struck an optimistic tone on Wednesday, saying the US and Iran had held “good talks over the last 24 hours” and suggesting a deal could emerge soon.

“We’re dealing with people that want to make a deal very much,” Trump said at the White House. “We’ll see whether or not they are agreeing, and if they don’t agree, they’ll end up agreeing shortly thereafter.”

But even as Trump projected confidence, other US officials sounded more cautious. One official told Axios: “We are not far, but there is no deal yet.”

The mixed messaging has increasingly become a defining feature of the conflict.

The rapidly changing narrative from Washington has added to perceptions of strategic confusion over how the US intends to end the conflict

Within the span of just 24 hours, the administration shifted from portraying military operations as effectively concluded to warning that bombing could resume if Tehran rejected US terms.

The rapidly changing narrative from Washington has added to perceptions of strategic confusion over how the White House intends to end the conflict.

Over recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly suggested Tehran was close to accepting US terms, only for negotiations to stall again. On Wednesday alone, Trump alternated between optimism and threats, warning in a Truth Social post that if Iran failed to agree, “the bombing starts” and would come “at a much higher level and intensity.”

The New York Times noted that the remarks appeared to contradict Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assertion a day earlier that the war was effectively “over”.

The latest proposal under discussion reportedly includes a temporary moratorium on Iranian uranium enrichment, phased sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian funds and steps linked to reopening transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has not yet formally accepted the proposal.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran was reviewing the American plan and would convey its position through Pakistani mediators, according to The New York Times. But another Iranian official reportedly dismissed the proposal earlier in the day as merely “a list of American wishes”.

The drawn-out diplomacy itself is increasingly being seen as evidence that neither side has managed to impose its demands.

Iranian officials have repeatedly signalled that while Trump may have started the war, Tehran believes it will decide the conditions under which it ends. Reuters earlier quoted an Iranian official as saying “Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met.”

CNN said the conflict reflects a growing strategic problem for the White House: despite bombing campaigns, naval pressure, sanctions and threats, Washington still lacks a clear path to ending the war on its preferred terms.

The war has also exposed how Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz has altered the strategic balance.

Before the conflict, freedom of navigation through the vital waterway was largely taken for granted. Now, Hormuz itself has become central to negotiations. Rubio acknowledged this reality on Tuesday when he said the US “preference” was for the strait to be reopened without tolls, mines or restrictions.

But as CNN noted, the fact that reopening Hormuz is now itself a negotiating objective highlights how Tehran has managed to turn the waterway into a strategic pressure point despite facing overwhelming US military power.

The confusion has been amplified by contradictory messaging from within the administration itself. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that “Operation Epic Fury” was effectively over, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth portrayed the US role as shifting toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz and protecting shipping lanes rather than sustaining a prolonged offensive campaign.

Yet Trump has continued warning of renewed bombing if talks fail, even as he insists a deal may be close.

The Trump administration’s rapidly changing strategies have further fuelled perceptions of drift.

One recent example was “Project Freedom,” a US naval escort mission designed to reopen shipping lanes through Hormuz. The operation was announced with urgency but paused within hours after escorting only a handful of vessels.

Trump said the move was intended to support peace talks, but CNN described the abrupt launch and suspension as another example of Washington searching for quick breakthroughs without a coherent long-term strategy.

Iran expert Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described the administration’s approach as a recurring “silver bullet” strategy — relying on dramatic moves to force Tehran into submission.

The pattern has included assassinations, bombing campaigns, naval blockades and sudden diplomatic pushes. Yet Iran’s leadership structure has largely held together, with no sign of the collapse some in Washington initially expected.

“The whole evolution of the conflict so far underscores the enormous gap between America’s operational capability, which is substantial, and the difficulty in bringing a kind of strategic result on terms most people would judge as a success,” Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told CNN.

Similarly, Anja Manuel, executive director of the Aspen Security Forum and a former US State Department official, warned against assuming the conflict was nearing resolution.

“This conflict is not over,” she told CNN.

“You can change the name of the operation, you can declare the ceasefire on or off, but what remains the case is the Straits of Hormuz is closed. We are blocking Iranian tankers, oil is sky-high, American companies are suffering and this conflict is nowhere near resolved.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel remained fully coordinated with Washington and insisted that removing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remained a core objective.

“There is full coordination between us, there are no surprises,” Netanyahu said, according to Axios.

For now, the constant exchange of proposals between Washington and Tehran reflects not simply diplomatic momentum, but the reality that neither side has yet managed to force the other into submission — leaving the conflict suspended between escalation and negotiation.