Hormuz tensions show diplomacy, deterrence move in tandem
Despite the ceasefire between Iran and the United States, the past week witnessed several exchanges of fire, including on Thursday night. These developments come as diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the crisis, mediated by Pakistan, remain underway, with officials in Islamabad in recent days speaking of significant progress in those efforts. In an interview with Iran Daily, international affairs analyst Kamran Yeganegi described the current situation as a limited violation of the ceasefire rather than its total collapse, arguing that it underscores the reality that the military track and diplomacy are moving simultaneously.
IRAN DAILY: What lies behind the recent clashes in the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire? Why does Washington continue to insist that the ceasefire remains intact even amid exchanges of fire?
YEGANEGI: The recent clashes in the Strait of Hormuz should be analyzed within the framework of a “fragile ceasefire,” rather than a lasting peace. At the same time, Washington’s insistence that the ceasefire remains in place indicates that the United States currently has no desire to let the tensions spiral into a broader war and is seeking to keep the confrontation under control.
A review of available reports also suggests that despite the exchanges of fire between Iran and the United States, Donald Trump has continued to stress the importance of maintaining the ceasefire and staying on the diplomatic track.
Washington is fully aware that under the current sensitive circumstances, a complete collapse of the ceasefire could plunge the region into a cycle of unpredictable tensions — tensions that would affect not only the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, but also the global energy market and the stability of the international economy.
For that reason, the US emphasis on preserving the ceasefire appears to be more than merely a military stance; it is also a political and diplomatic effort aimed at preventing the crisis from spilling over and maintaining at least a minimal degree of control over developments on the ground.
In fact, in many international crises, a distinction is made between a “limited ceasefire violation” and the “complete collapse of the political process.” Washington likely wants to keep the recent exchange of fire at the level of a manageable incident so that backchannel consultations, regional mediation efforts, and diplomatic pathways can still move forward.
From a strategic standpoint as well, the United States currently shows little appetite for becoming embroiled in another prolonged regional conflict, particularly at a time when broader security priorities and geopolitical rivalries are competing for Washington’s attention globally. Maintaining the label of a “ceasefire,” even amid limited tensions, can therefore be viewed as part of a broader policy of crisis containment and preventing an unintended escalation.
These tensions come alongside new proposals to end the war and reports of progress in negotiations. Should these exchanges of fire be interpreted as part of battlefield pressure aimed at gaining political leverage, or as a sign of the fragility and instability of the diplomatic process?
The coincidence of these incidents with fresh proposals to end the war and Pakistan’s diplomatic role carries a clear message: the battlefield and diplomacy are moving simultaneously.
Page 8