The tenth day of Iran-US military strikes. A new layer in the Middle East crisis

The new phase of military confrontation between Iran and the United States continues for about ten days, gradually turning into not only a military, but also a political and diplomatic multi-layered crisis.

In recent hours, the mutual attacks have continued, targeting both the military infrastructures and the strategic communications and energy facilities of the region.

Washington says the actions are aimed at limiting Iran’s strike potential and securing maritime communications in the Persian Gulf, while Tehran insists the US continues its “aggression” and receives an “adequate response”.

At the same time, both sides, despite the harsh rhetoric, continue to state that the diplomatic path is not completely closed, which indicates that military pressure is still considered as a means to strengthen the negotiating positions, and not as a final goal.

Regional diplomacy shows new activity at this stage. According to Al Jazeera, Iran’s interior minister is arriving in Islamabad today to negotiate with the Pakistani authorities.

In recent months, Pakistan has become one of the most effective mediators between Washington and Tehran, trying to prevent a large-scale expansion of the conflict. Islamabad continues to take the same position, calling on the parties to return to the political process and maintain the previously formed negotiation framework.

In the same period, another remarkable piece of information appeared in the information field, which does not refer to military operations, but to the credibility of the negotiation process itself. Drop Site News claimed that during the contacts held in Switzerland, Iran passed a secret message to US Vice President JD Vance, accusing Steve Wittkoff and Jared Kushner of using the negotiation process for personal financial gain.

According to the publication, Tehran claims that Trump’s inner circle received about $9 billion in income from possible market manipulation, and said that the evidence will be presented later. The US administration categorically denied those accusations. So far, no independent evidence has been published to support these claims, but they also cast doubt on the honest motives of the negotiators.

However, even if these informations are not factually confirmed, their political importance cannot be underestimated. Tehran is actually trying to change the logic of the negotiation agenda, moving the discussion to the field of trust in the negotiators.

If previously the main differences were related to the nuclear program, sanctions and regional security, now the question of how much the negotiators really represent the state interests and how free they are from personal or political influences is brought to the fore. This can seriously complicate further negotiations even if the intensity of hostilities decreases.

Washington’s official statements do not yet indicate readiness to change the negotiating team. The White House continues to insist that operations against Iran will continue until threats to American and allied forces are eliminated.

At the same time, the US leadership continues to emphasize that a diplomatic solution remains the preferred option if Tehran is ready for “substantial negotiations”. The Iranian side, for its part, declares that it does not refuse political dialogue, but it is possible only “under conditions of equality and mutual respect”.

The main development scenario of the coming weeks is most likely not the deepening of a large-scale war. A continuation of controlled escalation is more likely, with military operations continuing at a limited intensity and closed diplomatic contacts, especially with the participation of Pakistan and other mediators, not stopped.

The change of the negotiating group is possible only if the Iranian accusations receive new factual developments or cause significant pressure in the US domestic political field. Otherwise, Washington is unlikely to abandon the already formed negotiation architecture.

Thus, the tenth day of the confrontation between Iran and the USA shows that the conflict is gradually moving to a new stage, where political trust and the legitimacy of the negotiation process become no less important than military operations.

If the mediators do not manage to restore the atmosphere of minimal trust in the coming days, even in the case of a ceasefire or temporary pauses, the negotiations will remain very fragile. And this means that the main challenge of stability in the Middle East in the near future will be not only the silencing of missiles, but also the restoration of political trust, without which any agreement will not be viable in the long term.

The continuation of the conflict cannot have an impact on the South Caucasus as well, where the issue of forming a new regional communication and security architecture has been actively discussed in recent months. The rapid advancement of the processes around the “TRIPP” initiative, which is of key interest to the Armenian authorities, largely depends on the concentration of political and security resources of external actors.

However, if Washington is forced to maintain a long-term involvement in the Iranian-American crisis, then, naturally, its political attention and practical opportunities in the South Caucasus will decrease. At the same time, the security environment created around Iran creates additional risks for regional communication projects, as Tehran considers the South Caucasus as a zone of its own vital interests and is sensitive to any initiative that could change the existing balance of power.

Against this background, another strategic challenge arises for Armenia. if the Iranian-American confrontation continues to deepen, domestic political and expert doubts about how realistic and stable long-term American involvement in the region can be will inevitably grow.

In other words, the longer the Middle East crisis lasts, the more likely it is that mistrust of US initiatives in the South Caucasus will develop, not because of a lack of political will, but because of a possible realignment of Washington’s strategic resources and priorities. Although many experts also claim that the upcoming election cycles in Washington and Tel Aviv will change their intense policy towards Iran.

—