US-Iran Talks: Iran Response via Pakistan and “Fog of War” Surrounds Conflict’s Future
After Iran Response via Pakistan: Fog of War Engulfs Negotiation Path Between Washington and Tehran
Indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran are witnessing a new development, as Tehran announced it has delivered its response to the American plan to end the ongoing war between the two sides, via a Pakistani mediator.
This development comes as media reports indicate criticism within the US administration of the current proposal. Observers say that contradictory US statements reflect a state of ambiguity regarding the negotiation path and the prospects of continued fighting or its cessation.
Iran Response
Iran’s official news agency “IRNA” announced today, Sunday, that Tehran has sent its response to the latest text proposed by the United States to end the war, via the Pakistani mediator.
The agency indicated that negotiations at this stage, based on the proposed Iranian plan, will focus on the issue of ending the war in the region.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei had announced several times that Iranian views and observations regarding the American proposals would be sent after completing their study and final formulation.
Trump Refrains from Commenting
US President Donald Trump said yesterday, Saturday, in a statement to the Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera,” that he does not wish to comment on the latest Iranian response message.
According to observers, Trump’s stance may indicate his dissatisfaction either with the delay of the Iranian response or with the anticipated content of the response, raising questions about the continuation of negotiations or a return to fighting.
Two days ago, Trump told CNN that his administration expects to receive a response from Iran later in the evening regarding the American proposal aimed at ending the conflict.
Criticism Within the US Administration
The American newspaper “The Hill” quoted officials within the US administration, described by the report as “hardliners toward Iran,” as saying that the current American proposal could lead to results similar to the previous Obama nuclear deal.
According to the report, these officials believe that the proposed agreement in its current form may not provide sufficient guarantees regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
According to observers, these criticisms indicate a division within the US administration over how to deal with Tehran.
🚨US Economist Richard Wolff: ‘The US🇺🇸 must Live and let live with India🇮🇳, China🇨🇳 and Russia🇷🇺…or we DESTROY OURSELVES.’
‘A part of our leadership will strike out in a way that befits a desperate hegemon, when the empire they’ve presided over for the last century is in… https://t.co/lgG0UtM02W pic.twitter.com/vjhaGhvU7W
— New Order with Afshin Rattansi (@NewOrder_TV) May 10, 2026
“Fog of War”.. Fluctuations in US Statements
The US President makes daily statements about the war with Iran that leap from extreme threats of total destruction to indications of an imminent agreement, creating confusion among observers in understanding the actual direction of the US administration.
Trump’s use of social media platforms to announce his decisions or goals has exacerbated this confusion.
Analysts say that this phenomenon is not new during wars, but is part of what is called the “fog of war” — a pattern of statements aimed at confusing adversaries and concealing true intentions, which may be directed at allies, adversaries, or the domestic public opinion.
American Bets Before the War
Before the war broke out, the American bet, according to reports, was based on the assumption that tightened sanctions would pressure Iran to accept stricter restrictions on its nuclear program.
According to the same sources, Iran had shown willingness to reduce enrichment and transfer part of its highly enriched uranium abroad, in exchange for a gradual lifting of sanctions.
However, Israeli and American assessments, based on factors including popular protests in Iran and Tehran’s avoidance of entering a wide-scale war in previous stages, led both administrations to believe that the Iranian regime might be more fragile than it appeared.
Based on this, the US administration adjusted its demands from restricting the nuclear program to demanding its complete abandonment, according to reports.
War Developments
Both sides achieved different objectives during the war. While Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, affecting global energy markets, the US economy faced repercussions from this.
According to reports, American officials estimated that the continuation of the war could affect living costs in the United States, which prompted the administration to seek a settlement through Pakistani mediation.
Reports indicate that Iran proposed a ten-point plan that includes negotiating the lifting of sanctions in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which, from some analysts’ perspective, means separating the sanctions issue from the nuclear file.
Negotiations and Memorandums of Understanding
Media reports indicated that the memorandum of understanding mediated by Pakistan may include announcing a cessation of hostilities and initiating negotiations within a specified period over disputed issues.
Analysts believe that the evolution of negotiations in this direction could change the nature of pressure tools available to each party.
Israeli Positions
Israeli positions on the negotiation path vary, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to reports, has expressed his preference for continuing military or economic pressure on Iran.
Sources indicate that some of Trump’s close advisors adopt a stance close to the Israeli position.
However, observers suggest that calculations of US domestic politics, including midterm congressional elections, may be an influential factor in the US administration’s future decisions.
Also read:
Gold, oil prices and China reshape the global economy.. Has a new financial era begun?
