Efforts to end the US-Iran war are seesawing between hopes of a breakthrough and threats of renewed bombing. The stalled mediation reveals a dispute not just over what each side must concede, but over who moves first and what guarantees follow. As the war enters its eighth month and the US midterm elections approach, both sides are guarding their leverage. Mediators have yet to turn their declared willingness to negotiate into a settlement. An Axios report that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asked the Iranian delegation to leave New York, and Iran’s denial that it was expelled, has added a diplomatic clash to an impasse over the nuclear program, maritime security and sanctions. One departure, competing accounts Axios, citing a US official and a source familiar with the matter, reported that Rubio asked the Iranian delegation attending UN General Assembly meetings to leave on Monday evening, after White House hopes of progress in the talks faded. The request included Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who left with the delegation early Tuesday. The US official said the meetings were over and the Iranians had stayed beyond the period during which they were welcome. Iran’s mission disputed that account, saying the delegation’s departure did not follow a US order and that its itinerary had been submitted to the State Department on Sept. 17. Axios itself cited a source saying Araghchi had already been due to return to Tehran on Monday evening. Whether Washington issued the request is therefore separate from whether it changed the departure time. Describing the delegation as expelled would treat a disputed account as an established fact. US accounts attribute Rubio’s move to frustration with the lack of progress through Qatari mediation. It could be read as a political signal of a harder line as optimism faded. But the published information does not establish that Washington had decided to end negotiations. Mediation channels remained open, suggesting increased pressure within the diplomatic process rather than its end. Who moves first? Iran’s proposal has not been officially published. According to leaked details reported by media outlets, it calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within a week and resuming nuclear talks in exchange for lifting the naval blockade of Iranian ports, exempting oil sales from sanctions and releasing frozen assets. It also calls for a ceasefire on all fronts. Trump rejected the proposal, underscoring the unresolved question of what Washington should gain from easing pressure. Patrick Clawson, director of the Viterbi Program on Iran and US Policy at the Washington Institute, told Asharq Al-Awsat that Trump wanted both the reopening of the strait and nuclear concessions. Either would be difficult to secure; obtaining both would be harder still. Mutual distrust also complicates implementation, Clawson said. Each side wants proof that the other will honor its commitments before making concessions of its own, making a phased process difficult to arrange. The dispute thus runs along two tracks: the terms of a deal and how to carry them out. Returning to nuclear talks does not amount to making specific nuclear concessions. Nor does promised sanctions relief guarantee that Iran will reap its benefits. Reuters quoted an official familiar with the matter as saying the two sides largely agreed on the steps but differed over their order. That leaves room for negotiation. It does not mean a finished agreement is awaiting signature. Sequencing determines who gives up leverage first, and what guarantees they receive in return. The cost of waiting Monday’s signs of optimism gave way on Wednesday evening to renewed threats from Trump of bombing unless a deal was reached. In an interview published by Time magazine on Thursday, he said intensifying strikes after the midterm elections remained a possibility. That keeps the military option open. It does not establish that Trump has decided to resume strikes or set a date.
