Pezeshkian

Amid growing concerns about renewed attacks on Iran following Tuesday’s midterm elections in the United States, US forces have struck Iran’s Qeshm Island in what officials have reportedly described as a defensive measure.

In the first attack since June on Qeshm Island, which serves as the primary platform for Iran’s “asymmetric” naval power, according to analysts, the US strikes come as both sides continue to adopt military and diplomatic postures.

Mediation efforts led by Qatar are continuing in a bid to avert a return to all-out war, which began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran, triggering the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, surging oil and gas prices and massive damage to military, civil and energy facilities around the Gulf.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the attack on Qeshm Island?

Several explosions were heard on Qeshm Island late on Monday, as US media reported that the US military had carried out what officials called “defensive strikes” in the Strait of Hormuz.

The blasts came in rapid succession, according to Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency. Witnesses told the agency they saw two planes flying over the island, located off Iran’s southern coast along the waterway.

According to The Wall Street Journal, which quoted an unnamed official, the strikes on Monday night appeared limited and were not a resumption of a major operation.

The Associated Press news agency also quoted an unnamed US official as saying Washington had conducted the defensive strikes against “Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”.

The attack came after IRNA reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had destroyed a US MQ-9 drone east of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US first struck a critical desalination plant on Qeshm Island on March 7 – one week into the war. The strike, which Tehran branded a “flagrant crime” against civilians, cut off freshwater supplies to 30 surrounding villages.

But isn’t diplomacy ongoing?

It is, but it is fragile, and mixed messages are coming from both sides.

Qatari mediators have been engaged in indirect talks with Iranian officials in recent days. They have passed messages between the two sides, but the talks appeared to come to an end on Monday with no news of a breakthrough.

An official briefed on the talks told the Reuters news agency that Iran’s delegation had departed from Doha on Sunday, but that a draft proposal was still being circulated, without elaborating on the content.

Qatari mediators travelled to Tehran on Monday night for talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regarding a version of a draft US-Iran deal which has been under negotiation for the past eight days, an official told Reuters.

Araghchi told IRNA on Monday: “Consultations through mediators are very intensive. We have presented our conditions and proposals, and everything depends on the political rationality of Washington.”

Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also told a news conference on Monday that the “ball” was in the US’s court as Iran’s demands were “clear and logical”.

He said the plan Iran submitted in September to end the war remained the focus of talks, but that the proposal could be shortened and implemented in “two days”, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and returning to talks about Iran’s nuclear programme.

On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had given the government “certain authorities” over talks with the US, local media reported.

The president added that Tehran would look to resolve the conflict through dialogue.

Khamenei’s apparent approval of diplomacy marks a change since the breakdown of the June memorandum of understanding, which allowed a brief ceasefire and peace negotiations, when the supreme leader said the US could not be trusted.

For the US side, Vice President JD Vance also told reporters on Monday that he was hopeful for a diplomatic solution – just hours before the strikes on Qeshm Island.

“The president and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said. “We’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more.”

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reiterated on Tuesday that Iran’s response to any US “miscalculation”, such as launching strikes, would be unpredictable.

“The enemy seeks to force the Iranian nation into submission through threats and military action, but they are sorely mistaken; Iran will not submit,” he said.

What has Trump said about diplomacy?

Oil prices dropped by more than 7 percent on Monday. In response, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that people believe the war with Iran will not resume as mediation efforts continue.

“Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote.

He told media at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, that it looked like efforts were “coming together very nicely”.

“That’s why I guess the oil prices dropped. People found out about it.”

However, Trump also told the US media outlet Axios before his post on Truth Social that he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume strikes on Iran.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline, and their people are getting very tired of it,” Trump told Axios in an interview.

What happens next?

The US midterm elections are being viewed as the inflexion point for Trump’s decision on what path he takes next.

The president has suggested several times that he could attack Iran following the vote and told the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) on Sunday that the conflict would end “very soon one way or the other”, adding that Tehran would either “make a deal, or we’ll just end it”.

Observers say the US will likely renew strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if they do resume.

In particular, this could include Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a highly fortified site that contains two tunnel complexes buried deep underground, and which Trump told US outlet Newsmax last month could be a target. He said the US “may have to go there. We’ll take a shot at that one. We’ll knock it out fast.”

As the threat of a new war with the United States looms, the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, a hardline political faction also known as the Paydari Front, has asked the Iranian parliament and the Supreme National Security Council to initiate a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This move has been interpreted as a call for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, with the Paydari Front saying these military endeavours should happen “as quickly as possible”.

It is the latest bold and defiant message by Iran’s hardliners against Washington, after the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28 on the pretext that Tehran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The war has seen the Strait of Hormuz largely closed to shipping, massive damage to Iranian and Arab infrastructure in missile and air strikes, and huge disruptions to global energy supplies.

The past eight months have also marked an ongoing existential power struggle between moderates and centrists, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian, who generally favour talks with the US, and hardliners in the Paydari Front who do not.

Ultimately, the moderate camp wants a swift end to the conflict to save Iran’s crumbling economy. Hardliners believe Washington only understands the language of force, so the war should continue until the US capitulates to Iran’s demands.

The domestic rivalry can be seen in the public squares of major Iranian cities, where for the past 200 days supporters of the hardline faction have rallied at night.

Initially, these gatherings were a way for people to express public support for the government and protest the unprovoked US war on Iran. Over time, they have evolved into highly organised political rallies where activists can publicly express their strong opposition to moderates’ efforts to end the war through diplomatic channels.

The hardliners’ slogans include “No compromise, no surrender – the fight against America” and “Negotiating with the enemy is a betrayal of the homeland”.

They also protested against President Pezeshkian’s return to Tehran from the UN General Assembly in September, where he condemned the US war but also extolled the virtues of diplomacy. The pickets were viewed as a way for their “anti-negotiation” message to be heard by the president.

This bloc has considerable power beyond these activist circles. Hardliners have a strong presence in Tehran’s municipal government, the parliament, among religious preachers and eulogists, and academia and the media.

Amirhossein Sabeti, a member of parliament aligned with the Paydari Front, said in a statement that negotiations with the US will not begin unless Washington’s siege on Iran’s southern ports or sanctions end.

“The enemy’s objective of destroying Iran has not changed. It is simply waiting for the right moment to launch another surprise attack. Those who thought negotiations could prevent war, or that the United States would lift sanctions through negotiations, did not understand how the world works and were deluding themselves,” he said. “The only language the world understands is the language of power.”

The political faction to which Sabeti belongs has filed a motion in the Iranian parliament to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, following his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Iran’s parliament is also considering a law to criminalise interviews with foreign media outlets, which would be another win for hardliners.

But as the impeachment motion against Iran’s foreign minister moves through parliament, the political camp supporting the government continues to advocate for a diplomatic solution to the current conflict.

Davood Heshmati, a journalist considered close to Pezeshkian, said there are signs that US forces have foregone the grand ambition of overthrowing the Iranian government and have instead opted for more modest aims, which makes a diplomatic solution more likely.

“There are several ways to achieve those other goals, one of which is war. But, in any case, to prevent a war, all alternatives to military action must first be tested. Negotiations and a diplomatic agreement are among those alternatives, and they should always take precedence over war,” Heshmati told Al Jazeera.

“Those who say the Strait of Hormuz must not be reopened are people who believe the war must not end. From the perspective of Iran’s anti-negotiation camp, the war between Iran and the United States has no end. What they do not explain is what outcome they expect from this war. They seem to believe that, after several rounds of fighting, the United States will simply walk away from the conflict. But that idea does not appear to be consistent with the logic of what we are witnessing.”

He indicated that for any war to end, there needs to be an understanding with the US that respects Iran’s territorial integrity.

“Those in Iran who support negotiations argue that a balance of power does not necessarily have to be achieved through war, although, given everything that has happened along the diplomatic path, the distrust that exists is understandable,” he said.

Political analyst Negar Mortazavi argues that hardline groups are a powerful domestic force, but they currently have limited influence over Iran’s foreign policy.

“Iran’s hardliners are not a marginal political force. They are a well-organised and deeply entrenched part of [Iran’s] political establishment. Their strength lies in their ability to mobilise supporters, shape political discourse, pressure the government, and raise the political cost of diplomacy,” she said.

“But political influence should not be confused with ultimate decision-making authority. Decisions about war, peace, and negotiations are made at the highest levels of Iran’s leadership and national security establishment.”

Hardliners can continue to confront negotiators, threaten impeachments against those who propose talks with the US, and try to obstruct diplomatic endeavours, she said. But they cannot prevent an agreement being reached if it is backed by the country’s main powerholders, including Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council.

“The [hardliners] are powerful enough to complicate diplomacy, but not necessarily powerful enough to stop it. [They] are a highly visible and vocal political force, but they are not calling the shots,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“Throughout the war, Tehran has kept the door open to diplomacy, and the decision at the highest levels of leadership has been to pursue negotiations with the United States and seek an agreement. The hardliners have been unable to stop that. The real test of their power is that they could not stop the JCPOA [nuclear agreement] under [former President Barack] Obama, and they could not stop the more recent MoU [memorandum of understanding] with Trump. Ultimately, the decisions were made above their heads.”

Street rallies and television programmes opposing a peaceful solution to the US-Israeli war against Iran will continue. But the delay in scheduling the foreign minister’s impeachment hearing, alongside continued diplomatic engagement with mediators to end the war, suggests that the moderates are still a force to be reckoned with.