JUST IN
The final bell of this bout may be near. The United States and Iran have traded blows in recent days, with the US launching two nights of strikes in southern Iran after Iran downed a US Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. Iranian forces responded with attacks against Gulf countries and a US air base in Jordan. US President Donald Trump threatened further escalation this morning, but then reversed course this afternoon, calling off strikes and saying that all parties had “approved” a deal. What does this back-and-forth signal about the state of the war and the negotiations? We turned to our experts for answers.
TODAY’S EXPERT REACTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY
- William Wechsler (@WillWechsler): Senior director of the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combatting terrorism
- Alex Plitsas (@alexplitsas): Head of the Counterterrorism Project in the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and former counterterrorism official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
- Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley: Distinguished fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, former special assistant for the Middle East and Africa to the US secretary of state, former president of the Middle East Policy Council, and current senior advisor at WestExec Advisors
Trump’s plan
- Trump’s goal with this escalation was to force a deal with, as Will puts it, “the rather generous terms” for Iran that have been discussed for several weeks: Iran allows shipping to resume through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for financial incentives, with tougher decisions about Tehran’s nuclear program punted to future talks.
- This afternoon, Trump announced on social media that he was calling off tonight’s planned strikes and a deal signing would be announced soon, though he did not offer details. “He needed to ensure they knew he would strike if pushed and wouldn’t be strung along,” Alex says.
- Gina argues that Trump pulled back because “wiser heads got to him.” The conditions that “brought Trump to the April truce haven’t changed”: He does not want an indefinite conflict.
Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.
Details of a deal
- The big question following Trump’s turnaround, Alex says, is whether “the military pressure compelled Iran to accept terms it has previously resisted. I’ve been skeptical that Tehran would change course, but we will find out if and when an agreement is signed and made public.”
- But even a deal that stops the immediate fighting is unlikely to address all the underlying issues, Will says. Next, he expects Iranian officials to undertake “yet another diplomatic attempt to stall for time through a cycle of different intermediaries, since from their perspective it’s worked so well for them thus far.”
The regional implications
- Gina points to the growing divide between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the war. The Israeli leader is resisting US pressure to end Israeli strikes in Lebanon that are popular at home, while he sees talks trending toward an unacceptable outcome for Israel: “Iran’s government intact while permitting a restricted but continuing nuclear program.”
- “A US president frustrated by what he sees as Iranian foot-dragging, an Israeli prime minister marginalized and resentful, and a nuclear program still unresolved is a situation for diplomatic nightmares,” Gina warns. “The Gulf states are especially vulnerable. And the world economy, already reeling from the Hormuz closure, can hardly absorb another round of escalations.”
The longer horizon
- Will says the pending deal would “likely leave Iran still having achieved a ‘new normal,’ in which directly striking its neighbors and de facto controlling Hormuz are now somehow no longer automatically considered a casus belli by the United States.” Meanwhile, Tehran “remarkably” would have established “the precedent that its diplomacy is able to limit Israeli actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
- Taking the long view, Will tells us that “the US will likely need to keep an aircraft carrier strike group and other necessary offensive and defense military assets cycling through the region through the end of the Trump administration at the very least—and likely until the eventual fall of the Iranian regime, whenever that day comes.”
Image: People walk next to a symbolic mock-up of an Iranian missile, on a street in Tehran, Iran, June 11, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS