US and Iran need to drop their maximalist demands
Iranian and American positions may have been far apart during the post-ceasefire talks in Islamabad. However, it appears that both sides are seeking a way out of the impasse. US President Donald Trump has hinted at another round of talks in the coming days, while Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said his country is not seeking war but dialogue. Clearly, the space for diplomacy has not disappeared. But the problem is not only the trust deficit; it is also that neither side wants to appear “weak” before its domestic audience. This is evident in Trump’s naval blockade, under which the US Navy is interdicting ships entering or leaving Iranian ports. Vessels calling at non-Iranian ports are allowed to proceed — assuming Iran, which has closed the Strait of Hormuz to “enemy ships”, permits their passage.
The message behind the blockade is that if other nations cannot export through the strait, neither can Iran. Such a move targets Tehran’s war chest — its oil exports and revenues have surged during the conflict — to force it to accept a deal. Years of harsh sanctions, however, suggest that Iran has a high tolerance for economic pain. Tehran, for its part, has warned that it will disrupt trade across the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman, and the Red Sea. Each side is waiting for the other to blink first.
Finding a diplomatic solution to the three core issues — Iran’s nuclear programme, the Strait of Hormuz, and the future of Tehran’s regional proxies — will be difficult, but not impossible. Negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal between the US and Iran took nearly 20 months. Any agreement will require both sides to set aside maximalist demands. The exclusion of Lebanon from the ceasefire remains a sticking point, though the first direct talks in 33 years between Israel and the Lebanese government offer a measure of hope. On the nuclear programme, the US in Islamabad proposed a 20-year suspension of uranium enrichment, while Iran suggested five. On this, as on Hormuz and other issues, compromise will be essential. For diplomacy to stand a chance, both sides must maintain the ceasefire and refrain from escalating their competing blockades.
- 1The US-Iran impasse, with talks in Islamabad, highlights the challenge of overcoming maximalist demands in diplomacy, where domestic pressures often prevent concessions. The 2015 nuclear deal serves as a precedent that complex negotiations require significant time and compromise from actors like the US and Iran. For CLAT, this illustrates how trust deficits and national pride can stall diplomatic progress despite a mutual interest in avoiding conflict.
- 2The US naval blockade and Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz raise critical questions under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS guarantees the right of transit passage through international straits, making these unilateral actions potential violations of international law. Such measures could be legally characterized as acts of coercion, a key concept for legal reasoning passages concerning international disputes and maritime law.
- 3The competing blockades demonstrate economic warfare as a foreign policy tool, directly impacting global commerce and energy security. The US blockade targets Iran's oil revenues, while Iran's threat to disrupt trade in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea could trigger global supply chain crises. This highlights the economic vulnerability associated with geopolitical conflicts in critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, affecting international trade.
- 4Domestic political considerations significantly shape the foreign policy of both the US and Iran, as neither President Trump nor President Pezeshkian wants to appear weak to their constituencies. This dynamic, where leaders prioritize domestic image over diplomatic flexibility, is a core concept in governance. It illustrates how a nation's foreign policy decisions are often constrained by internal political pressures and the need to maintain popular support at home.
Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs
- US–Israel Strikes on Iran 2026: Everything a CLAT Aspirant Needs to Know
US–Israel strikes on Iran explained for CLAT 2027 aspirants. Timeline, key facts, India's response, global impact & expected questions — all in one place.