The war has reached its peak. When it will stop or end—and whether it will soon lead to negotiations—remain uncertain, with expectations shifting from day to day. The American president refuses a ceasefire but does not object to negotiations continuing under bombardment, as reflected in his interest in the “messages” conveyed by intermediary states between him and Tehran. Iran, for its part, preconditions any negotiations on a halt to attacks against it, along with a prior “commitment” not to resume them and the payment of “compensation” for its losses.

Israel hopes the war will continue until it achieves its “goals,” which the American intelligence community, days ago, described as “different from American goals,” namely pursuing “regime change.” Are Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu truly at odds over this objective, or are they reiterating coordinated “disagreements,” as seen in Trump’s claim of “surprise” at Israel’s bombing of the Iranian gas field and his assertion that Netanyahu complied with his request not to target Iranian energy infrastructure?

On the eve of this event, Trump displayed intense anger and a readiness for a historic rift with NATO and other countries after they refused his request to send warships to protect oil tankers and commercial supplies passing through the Strait of Hormuz. He has been, and continues, trying to draw these countries into his war to “break” Iran’s decision to close the Strait and trigger an energy crisis. However, these countries held back: they had not been consulted about the war, no prior coordination had taken place, and they were unwilling to repeat the experience of going to war in Iraq without United Nations backing. Hence, the timing of the Israeli bombing of the Pars field was viewed as a deliberate escalation of the energy crisis, followed by an Iranian retaliation targeting gas fields shared with Qatar.

After these developments, the reluctant countries announced their readiness to contribute to securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, provided it aligns with Security Council Resolution 2817 and includes a “comprehensive and immediate halt to attacks on civilian infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities.” While this stance appears responsive to the pressures of Trump (and Netanyahu), their conditions leave it unclear whether it will ease the energy crisis that has pushed Trump and his team to consider scenarios for ending the war—while simultaneously exploring paths of extreme escalation, such as the possible occupation of Kharg Island “at any time,” according to Lindsey Graham, who said that whoever controls the island “controls the fate of the war.” Trump’s 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz seems to be the final warning before a move to control the island. The Iranian military responded that it “will target all energy, information technology, and desalination infrastructure belonging to the United States” in the region.

This targeting, of course, implies the Gulf states, which have expressed in various ways their determination to escalate their response to Iranian attacks. The clearest statement came from the Saudi Foreign Minister, who affirmed the “Kingdom’s right to a military response,” while “preferring diplomatic solutions, provided there is an immediate halt to Iranian attacks.” While the anger of Gulf countries reflects an understanding that the previous security equation is no longer sufficient following the targeting of oil facilities, Washington has adopted “defending allies in the region” as a fifth objective of the war on Iran, introducing into ongoing negotiations proposals that Iran sign disarmament treaties with regional countries, limiting its missile arsenal to a ceiling of one thousand missiles.

The new Trump warning marked the beginning of the fourth week of the war, as Israel resumed bombing the Natanz facility to underscore that the nuclear file remains central. Iran responded by striking Dimona and Arad—areas near Israel’s nuclear facilities—to signal that its missile capabilities still hold surprises.

Alongside this escalation, the six American conditions for negotiations were revealed (halting the missile program for five years, dismantling three nuclear reactors and a complete halt to uranium enrichment, strict oversight of the nuclear program, treaties with regional countries, and halting funding to proxies…). These conditions appear designed to reproduce negotiations in a way that leads to failure and paves the path to war. Yet the preconditions themselves also seem difficult: Washington prioritizes reopening the Strait of Hormuz as a condition for accepting negotiations, while still refusing to engage with Tehran’s demands to end the attacks and commit not to resume them before talks begin. Trump, according to leaks, described these demands as “unacceptable,” while Axios sources stated, “what they call compensation, we call unfreezing funds,” and that this point could be negotiated.

As escalation is expected to ripen the push toward negotiations, Trump continues to boast that “the war is over” and that he has “achieved his goals,” reinforcing the view that Netanyahu is “the biggest winner” in this war. Meanwhile, Mojtaba Khamenei affirmed in his Nowruz message that Iran had dealt a “severe blow to the enemy.”

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.