Ceasefire strain raises Gulf stakes

Washington’s fragile ceasefire with Tehran moved close to collapse after President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s latest response to a US peace proposal and described the arrangement as being on “massive life support”.

Trump’s remarks on Monday marked one of the sharpest public assessments of the 10-week conflict, which has already disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, lifted energy prices and strained diplomacy across the Gulf. Speaking after reviewing Tehran’s counterproposal, he called the response “stupid” and “a piece of garbage”, while insisting that talks remained possible if Iran changed course on nuclear and regional security demands.

The US proposal had sought to preserve the ceasefire while opening broader negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, maritime security and the terms for easing military pressure. Tehran’s reply instead widened the agenda, demanding an end to hostilities across the region, relief from sanctions, removal of the naval blockade, war reparations and recognition of its position over the Strait of Hormuz.

The gulf between the two sides has left mediators struggling to keep the truce alive. Pakistan has been involved in efforts to shape a memorandum of understanding, while Washington has looked to Beijing for pressure on Tehran because China remains a major buyer of Iranian oil. Trump is expected to raise the issue with President Xi Jinping, with energy security and the flow of Gulf crude now central to wider diplomatic calculations.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most immediate flashpoint. Roughly a fifth of global oil consumption passes through the waterway, making any prolonged disruption a direct risk to energy markets, shipping insurance, inflation and refinery margins from Asia to Europe. The near-closure of the route has pushed crude benchmarks above $100 a barrel and added pressure on governments already trying to contain fuel costs.

Trump has floated a pause in the federal gasoline tax to cushion US consumers from higher pump prices, while also signalling that Washington could revive naval escort operations for commercial vessels. Such a move would reassure shippers but also raise the risk of direct confrontation if US naval assets and Iranian forces operate in close proximity.

Iran has framed its position as a defence of sovereignty and regional security. Officials in Tehran have accused Washington of making unreasonable demands and have warned that any renewed attack would be met with a forceful response. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has said Iran is ready for “any aggression”, language that has reinforced concerns that the ceasefire could unravel through miscalculation as much as through a formal breakdown in talks.

The nuclear file remains the core obstacle. Washington wants verifiable limits on Iran’s enrichment activities and stronger guarantees over stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Tehran has indicated willingness to discuss technical options, including dilution or possible transfer abroad, but has resisted terms it views as surrendering sovereign control over its programme.

Trump has claimed Iran had been willing at one stage to allow outside assistance in removing enriched uranium, a point Tehran has not publicly accepted in the same terms. The disagreement reflects the deeper mistrust that has shaped successive rounds of diplomacy and made even partial understandings vulnerable to political pressure.

Israel and Hezbollah remain part of the wider equation. Iran’s demand that any settlement address fighting on multiple fronts has complicated US efforts to keep the negotiations focused on the bilateral ceasefire and the nuclear issue. Washington’s regional partners want guarantees that any deal will not leave Iran-backed groups with greater room to manoeuvre, while Tehran argues that a narrow agreement cannot survive without a wider de-escalation.

Domestic politics in the United States add another layer of pressure. Trump has rejected suggestions that he is seeking a deal because of political strain at home, but rising fuel prices and questions over the purpose of the conflict have sharpened scrutiny of the administration’s strategy. Lawmakers have pressed for clarity on war aims, costs and the legal basis for further military action if the ceasefire breaks.