Some media outlets have reported that Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei has agreed to engage in talks with the United States and work toward an agreement, signaling a possible diplomatic opening amid the ongoing conflict. However, official confirmation is still awaited from the Iranian government.
There are contradictory accounts from Washington and Tehran regarding the existence and nature of diplomatic talks aimed at ending the ongoing conflict. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that there have been high-level, “very good and productive” discussions over the past few days. Citing progress in these talks, Trump announced a five-day suspension of threatened attacks on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure. The President identified Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as participants in these discussions with “top” Iranian figures. Reports suggest that a high-level meeting may be held in Islamabad later this week, which will probably be attended by Vice President JD Vance.
However, Iran strongly denied that any direct or indirect talks had taken place. Parliamentary Speaker Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf dismissed the claims as “fake news” intended to manipulate the oil and financial markets. Iranian state media denied any negotiations and claimed that Trump “backed back” from his deadline “out of fear of Iran’s reaction”. While denying formal talks, Iran’s Foreign Ministry later confirmed receiving messages from the US through intermediaries. A senior Iranian Foreign Ministry official reportedly said that “We received the points from the US through intermediaries and they are being reviewed.”
President Trump’s strategy for the ongoing conflict with Iran has been characterized by shifting objectives, aggressive ultimatums, and more recently, sudden diplomatic initiatives. The core of his plan evolved through several different stages. The administration’s stated military goals have fluctuated between surgical strikes and widespread infrastructure destruction. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has focused on destroying Iran’s offensive missiles, naval forces and defense industrial base. Trump has repeatedly pledged to ensure that Iran “never” obtains nuclear weapons and to “destroy” its ballistic missile industry. Recently, Trump expanded his list of targets to include power plants, starting with the largest and crown jewel military assets like Kharag Island.
Trump’s approach to the end game remains vague, although he has demanded “unconditional surrender” through tough conditions. Reports indicate that the draft peace plan includes a five-year freeze on all missile programs, zero uranium enrichment and the complete dismantling of nuclear facilities such as Natanz. Trump has stated his long-term goal is to liberate the Iranian people and work with new leaders to make Iran “economically bigger, better and stronger.”
Has Israel agreed to end the Iran war? Israel has not officially ended the conflict with Iran. While Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed a possible deal with President Trump to take advantage of the military advantage in a deal, Israel has continued, and has vowed to continue, attacks on Iran and its allies, indicating that a formal peace deal has not yet been reached. Netanyahu confirmed on March 23, 2026 that Israel was continuing its attacks on Iran and Lebanon.
Israel’s current military strategy against Iran is a multipronged campaign aimed at regime change and the permanent destruction of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities. The plan focuses on “assassination” tactics and systematic infrastructure degradation. Netanyahu has addressed the Iranian people directly, urging them to overthrow the clerical regime. Israel has targeted top political and military leadership, including Ayatollah Khamenei, the IRGC commander, and several defense officials, in a bid to paralyze Iran’s command and control structure. Another aspect of the strategy is to weaken the axis of resistance (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza) in order to eliminate Iran’s ability to wage a multi-front war against Israel.
Israel is implementing a strategy of incoherent, concentrated attacks similar to the 2006 Lebanon campaign to counterbalance Iranian forces. Operations have expanded to include energy infrastructure, power plants, and IT networks, increasing the “cost” of war to the Iranian regime. The strategy also includes using high-level intelligence for targeted assassinations and cyber attacks to disable water and energy infrastructure.
However, it is unlikely that Israel can continue a high-intensity, long-term war against Iran without American support. There are several major factors that influence Israel’s ability to continue the war against Iran on its own. The first of these are defensive boundaries. Iran has used large-scale missile and drone attacks to deplete Israel’s limited stockpile of interceptor missiles, with some Iranian missiles successfully penetrating defenses and causing damage to infrastructure. The second factor is military maintenance. Without American help, Israel could lose control of its airspace in a protracted conflict due to lack of interceptor rockets and ammunition. Above all, there is the third factor – economic stress. The cost of war with Iran is high, with previous conflicts costing millions of dollars a day and causing significant damage to the Israeli economy, already strained by the long-term conflict in Gaza.
While Israel is prepared to attack Iran and its proxies (such as Hezbollah) to protect its interests, the scale of Iranian retaliation indicates that a sustained, all-out war requires American assistance. While Netanyahu has declared that Israel will continue attacks in Iran and Lebanon, these operations are often aided by the US. The conflict often escalates into a war of attrition, which is difficult for Israel to manage completely alone. Thus, while Israel can conduct targeted strikes, it faces significant risks of low interceptor reserves, defense systems overwhelmed by massive Iranian ballistic missile attacks, and high economic costs, making U.S. assistance critical to maintaining air defenses and maintaining military pressure.
What are Iran’s plans in the current war against America and Israel? Iran is adopting a strategy of endurance and horizontal escalation to avoid a high-intensity joint military operation by the US and Israel. Following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the initial US-Israeli strikes on February 28, 2026, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has taken direct control of war strategy under Mojtaba Khamenei.
Iran’s plan is built on three primary objectives designed to force the US to withdraw by destabilizing the conflict. First, Iran is targeting US allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – particularly oil and gas infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – in order to force these countries to pressure Washington to stop the war. Secondly, by mining the Strait of Hormuz and attacking tankers, Iran has caused a 97% decline in traffic through the world’s most important oil chokepoint. Its purpose is to create a global economic crisis that weakens domestic political support for President Trump. Third, due to the lack of conventional air power, Iran continuously uses warfare of endurance, including drones and missile volleys, to exhaust the stockpile of American and Israeli air defense interceptors (such as Arrow 3 and THAAD).
What are Iran’s operational strategies? The first of these is horizontal growth. Iran is expanding the geographic scope of the war to include Lebanon (through Hezbollah) and Iraq in order to drain US and Israeli resources. Second, Iran is launching asymmetric precision strikes. This is transitioning from high-volume saturation to precision strikes using solid-fuel and hypersonic missiles (for example, Khibar Shekan) to bypass sophisticated defenses and destroy critical infrastructure such as the Haifa oil refinery. Third, Iran is waging hybrid/cyber warfare. Despite a near-complete domestic internet blackout, Iran-aligned groups have launched massive cyberattacks against Israeli energy firms and regional airports, disrupting civilian life.
In short, against the above backdrop, the prospects for US-Iran talks are highly volatile and contradictory, with President Trump claiming meaningful discussions and potential agreement while Tehran publicly denies direct contact and dismisses such reports as false. The US has halted any planned attacks on Iranian energy sites to allow a potential five-day diplomatic window aimed at addressing nuclear concerns and reducing regional instability. While President Trump has hinted at a possible deal, Iranian officials have maintained that they will not bow to demands for full surrender or the complete dismantling of their nuclear program. The next few days are being considered a narrow window to reduce tensions. Whether these productive signals lead to formal negotiations depends largely on whether both sides can move beyond public rhetoric to address the core issues of nuclear enrichment and regional security.
This article is written by Prabhu Dayal, former Ambassador to New Delhi.
