Trump Proposes Ceasefire with Iran…What's the Background?

According to these reports, the main content involves a swap: Iran would lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. would lift economic sanctions against Iran. Following these reports, international oil prices fell, showing an immediate market reaction.

Regarding the ceasefire discussions reported by Russian media, Iran stipulated that even if the Strait of Hormuz were opened, only merchant ships would be allowed to pass, not warships. Furthermore, Iran viewed President Trump's ceasefire proposal as a political move ahead of the midterm elections, expressing strong doubts about its sincerity. This demonstrates Iran's cautious stance toward the U.S. proposal.

The U.S. appears to believe that limited military action alone will not be sufficient to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Analysts suggest that it is difficult to change Iran's attitude when the objective of a military attack is unclear. Consequently, there is a possibility that the U.S. may shift its strategy from military pressure to prolonging economic sanctions.

The U.S. demanded that China stop importing Iranian oil, but China refused, raising questions about the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions. Iran is circumventing U.S. sanctions through various methods, and the card of blocking the Strait of Hormuz also carries significant uncertainty. China's non-cooperation is expected to be a considerable constraint on the U.S.'s pressure strategy against Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly revealed that his son was under an assassination threat from Iran. Although this was sensitive information usually subject to reporting restrictions, Netanyahu's direct disclosure is analyzed as an attempt to rally political support. This is interpreted as a strategy to strengthen internal cohesion amidst an unstable political situation.

In Israel, there is a political consensus that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile development must be curbed, regardless of whether Prime Minister Netanyahu is replaced. Therefore, it is expected that a hardline stance against Iran will be maintained by whoever takes power next. This indicates that the Iran issue is a core concern for Israel's security.

Iran is likely to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed until it extracts significant concessions from the U.S. This is interpreted as a strategy to use the blockade as a powerful bargaining chip to elicit U.S. concessions. Through this, Iran also aims to raise oil prices, putting pressure on the international community and increasing its leverage in negotiations.

In the current situation, the U.S. believes it cannot subdue Iran by force and appears to have no other options besides concessions and negotiations. The U.S. is in a more desperate position, giving Iran the upper hand in negotiations. Iran is focusing on issues of control over the Strait of Hormuz and revenue sharing. If the U.S. does not show flexibility, a ceasefire seems unlikely.

Oman was initially passive due to Iranian pressure but is analyzed to have shifted to an active stance after recognizing the economic benefits. The U.S. has expressed strong disappointment over Oman's change of attitude.

Although no confirmed amount exists currently, there are analyses suggesting even higher tolls are being discussed recently. The economic ripple effect will intensify once the final toll and the Iran-Oman revenue-sharing ratio are determined.

If ceasefire negotiations fail, the U.S. has warned of a maximum pressure strategy against Iran. As Scott Bessent mentioned, it is highly likely to involve specific financial institution sanctions, and pressure will escalate through phone calls to leaders of relevant countries seeking cooperation. The reactions of key countries such as China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Turkey, and Qatar in this process will be closely watched.

Given that U.S. voters prioritize domestic economic issues like inflation over the Iran problem, Trump's urgency is reflected in this proposal.

There are reports that Iran is internally preparing the language for an NPT withdrawal. This suggests a risk that Iran could go all-in and take a hardline stance, a scenario that could have significant repercussions for the international community.

The scenario of resuming military attacks, considering weapon stockpiles, cannot be ruled out. However, experts point to the limitation that it is difficult to subdue Iran without ground combat, questioning the effectiveness of military solutions.

As seen in past cases like the Vietnam War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, simple military superiority does not assure ultimate victory. In particular, a ground war with Iran would inflict immense casualties on U.S. forces, making it an unrealistic military option.

This would manifest as strong demands for allies to cease all transactions with Iran. As exemplified by the closure of Iran's Bank Mellat and demands to halt transactions with South Korean companies, there is a risk that pressure could extend to general companies not explicitly subject to sanctions.