Published On 10/6/2026
The New York Times addresses the challenges facing the ongoing negotiations between America and Iran, noting that the main obstacle does not lie in the terms of the potential agreement as much as it relates to how each party can present it internally as a political victory.
According to an analytical report by Erica Solomon, Farnaz Fassihi, and Tyler Pager, Washington and Tehran, which emerged from the last confrontation without a decisive victory or complete defeat, want to reach an agreement that reduces tension and prevents a return to war, but they also need a formula that saves face in the face of extremists at home.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
The report indicates that the general outlines of an initial agreement have been known for weeks. It is expected to include reopening normal navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, stopping mutual measures that impede the movement of ships, in addition to launching a second phase of negotiations dealing with the Iranian nuclear program and American economic sanctions.
However, the main disagreement revolves around the order in which obligations are implemented. Washington wants to obtain the largest possible amount of Iranian concessions before offering major incentives, while Tehran insists on obtaining tangible gains from the beginning, especially with regard to sanctions and frozen financial assets.
The newspaper quotes Sanam Wakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the British Chatham House Institute, as saying that the United States “wants to get everything without offering much at first,” while the Iranians want to obtain early gains in exchange for any concessions they make later.
Khamenei’s caution and Trump’s volatility
The newspaper believes that the personality of the leaders of the two countries represents an additional factor in the complexity of the negotiations. On the one hand, Iranian Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is still dealing with the proposed proposals with extreme caution, in light of security concerns and pressure from the hard-line movement within the Revolutionary Guards, which opposes making concessions to Washington after the war.
On the other hand, American negotiators are facing difficulty in dealing with President Donald Trump, whom the newspaper describes as volatile in his positions and who sometimes changes the conditions agreed upon by his envoys during the negotiations.
Sources who spoke to the newspaper say that one of the previous negotiating rounds faltered after Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment for a specific period, before Trump suddenly demanded an extension of the period.
The New York Times also points out that the absence of direct communications between Washington and Tehran increases the complexity of the negotiating process, as intermediary countries are responsible for transmitting messages and proposals between the two sides. Sometimes different parties circulate more than one draft of the agreement at the same time, which increases the state of confusion.
Despite these obstacles, many analysts believe that a preliminary, temporary agreement may see the light in the coming weeks. This is due to the economic pressures facing both parties. Iran is suffering from a worsening economic crisis and a sharp decline in the value of its currency, while the US administration faces the repercussions of rising energy prices and global economic pressures ahead of the midterm elections.
Frozen assets and navigation
The issue of frozen Iranian assets stands out as one of the most sensitive files. The report states that some previous formulas allowed Tehran to access tens of billions of dollars frozen in regional banks, something that may raise political criticism within the United States, especially since Trump had previously attacked previous American administrations for similar steps.
Meanwhile, the indirect confrontation continues in the Gulf. American forces continue to protect shipping traffic, while Iran uses its ability to influence the Strait of Hormuz as a negotiating pressure card. The newspaper believes that this method aims to improve the positions of both parties at the dialogue table.
The New York Times concludes that both sides remain convinced that time may be working on their side. Iran is betting that global economic pressures and rising energy prices will push Washington to make concessions, while the US administration believes that the worsening economic crisis inside Iran will eventually force Tehran to accept more stringent conditions.
