President Donald Trump has paused US airstrikes on Iran to create space for diplomatic negotiations, according to America’s ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.
The decision followed 13 consecutive nights of intensifying US attacks and was matched by a temporary halt in Iranian retaliation. No American strikes were reported on Saturday or Sunday, while Tehran said it would continue holding fire for as long as Washington did the same.
The lull represents the most promising opening for diplomacy in weeks. It does not amount to a formal ceasefire, however. US naval operations around Iran remain active, the most difficult political disagreements remain unresolved and both governments have made clear that military action could resume.
Trump Is Giving Negotiations “A Little Bit of Room”
Waltz confirmed the reason for the pause during an appearance on Fox News Sunday.
“He’s giving talks some space, he’s giving it a little bit of room,” the ambassador said. He added that Iran, Oman and American negotiators had been engaged at multiple levels, including senior political discussions and more detailed technical negotiations.
Waltz did not announce a new agreement or disclose exactly what concessions were being discussed. His comments nevertheless provided the clearest public confirmation that the military pause was intended to support diplomacy rather than simply allow US forces to reorganise.
A senior Trump administration official similarly said the president preferred a diplomatic outcome but had demonstrated what Iran could expect if it refused to negotiate seriously.
Iran Has Also Stopped Its Attacks
Iran responded by suspending its own military operations for a second day.
An Iranian army spokesperson confirmed the pause through state television. A senior Iranian official separately told Reuters that Tehran’s position remained “attack for attack”: Iranian operations would remain halted as long as the United States did not restart its bombing campaign.
Before the pause, Iran had repeatedly retaliated against neighbouring countries hosting US forces. At least three people were killed during an attack on a military base in Jordan, according to the Associated Press.
Tehran’s restraint therefore reduces the immediate threat to American personnel and Gulf states. Its conditional nature also makes the arrangement extremely fragile. A disputed drone flight, naval interception or single airstrike could quickly restart the cycle of retaliation.
The Strait of Hormuz Is at the Centre of the Dispute
The immediate negotiations appear to focus heavily on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.
Before the war, roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil passed through the strait. Iran later fired on commercial ships and attempted to control how vessels moved through the area, while the United States supported an alternative route closer to Oman.
A compromise under discussion would reportedly allow Iran to manage vessel transit while placing fewer restrictions on commercial shipping. Oman has been conducting technical talks with Iranian officials, and Tehran says those discussions have made progress.
The issue is about more than navigation. Control over shipping gives Iran economic and political leverage, while restrictions on tankers can raise global energy costs almost immediately.
Brent crude rose above $100 during the latest escalation, adding pressure on governments already facing public concern about fuel prices.
The Pause Is Not a Complete Ceasefire
Although airstrikes have stopped temporarily, American military pressure has not disappeared.
The US military continues enforcing its naval blockade of Iranian ports. It recently said that commercial ships had been redirected, boarded or disabled after attempting to violate the restrictions.
This creates an unusual situation in which aerial combat has paused while confrontations at sea continue. A merchant vessel attempting to breach the blockade could produce another military incident even while negotiators are meeting.
The current arrangement is therefore better described as a limited pause than a comprehensive ceasefire. Neither side has publicly committed to a permanent end to attacks, and there is no confirmed enforcement mechanism for handling future violations.
Iran’s Nuclear Programme Remains Unresolved
The maritime dispute may be the most urgent problem, but it is not the most difficult one.
The interim ceasefire agreement signed in mid-June created a 60-day period intended to support wider negotiations. Major issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme, have still not been resolved and have largely been set aside while mediators try to prevent an immediate return to war.
Washington wants stricter limits on Iran’s nuclear activities and assurances that the country cannot develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran has historically argued that it is entitled to maintain a civilian nuclear programme and has resisted demands it considers an attack on its sovereignty.
Those positions cannot be reconciled through a short pause alone. Even a successful agreement over commercial shipping would leave the central nuclear dispute, sanctions and regional military alliances open for future negotiations.
Iran Is Treating the Pause With Suspicion
Iranian officials have not presented Trump’s decision as evidence that Washington has fundamentally changed its position.
The senior Iranian source who spoke to Reuters said there was more scepticism than optimism in Tehran. Iranian leaders reportedly believe the pause could be tactical and remain concerned that the United States may use negotiations to prepare another round of attacks.
That distrust has been reinforced by repeated cycles of negotiation, threats, ceasefires and renewed military action during the conflict. Agreements have repeatedly reduced violence temporarily without resolving the disputes that caused it.
The United States faces the same problem from the opposite direction. American officials may view an Iranian pause as an effort to relieve military pressure while preserving control over Hormuz and rebuilding damaged defences.
A durable agreement will require both countries to believe that restraint produces greater benefits than renewed escalation.
Military Limits May Have Influenced Trump’s Decision
The administration publicly describes the pause as a diplomatic choice. Separate media reports suggest that military considerations may also have played a role.
CNN and The New York Times reported that senior advisers raised concerns about stocks of Patriot air-defence interceptors used to protect American forces in the region. Axios reported that the senior US commander in the Middle East believed the bombing campaign had reached the limits of what air power could achieve.
Waltz rejected the claim that vital interceptor stocks were running low, and the administration has not officially confirmed that weapons availability influenced Trump’s decision.
The conflicting accounts matter because they shape how Iran interprets the pause. A diplomatic opening may encourage compromise. A pause viewed as the result of military strain could encourage Tehran to wait for American pressure to weaken.
Trump Is Still Threatening Further Action
Trump has continued using forceful language even while allowing negotiations to proceed.
Speaking before the pause, he said the United States could continue dismantling Iran’s capabilities “piece by piece,” accelerate the campaign or negotiate. He also said Tehran appeared to be becoming more serious about a possible agreement.
This mixture of threats and diplomacy appears deliberate. The administration wants Iran to believe that failure at the negotiating table will bring another round of military action.
The danger is that coercive language can also make compromise politically difficult for Iranian leaders. Concessions reached under public threats may be portrayed internally as surrender, particularly amid competition among different factions inside Iran.
Israel Could Change the Calculations
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet Trump in Washington, adding another source of uncertainty.
Netanyahu has said he supports Trump’s efforts to pressure Iran and would accept a diplomatic result that prevents a return to intensive fighting. He has also warned that Israel would respond if Iran attacked it directly or through regional armed groups.
Israel joined the United States in launching the broader war in February but has not participated in the latest American strikes connected with the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts say that absence may have signalled that Washington wanted to limit the newest escalation rather than expand the conflict.
A renewed Israeli campaign could undermine the diplomatic pause even when the United States continues holding its fire.
A Real Opening, but Not Yet Peace
The halt in attacks has reduced the immediate danger of another rapid escalation. It has also allowed mediators to focus on shipping arrangements and the restoration of the June interim agreement.
Iran’s matching pause is encouraging because it shows that both sides can exercise restraint when they believe diplomacy may produce results.
The underlying conflict remains active, however. The US blockade continues, Iran’s nuclear programme is unresolved and neither government has committed to a permanent ceasefire. Regional fighting involving Iranian-backed groups could also create an incident that pulls Washington and Tehran back into direct confrontation.
Trump has created a window for negotiations. Whether that window leads to a durable agreement or simply becomes another pause between rounds of bombing will depend on what happens in the coming days.
