As the U.S. and Iran exchange threats and warnings while expressing readiness for any scenario—including the resumption of military operations—all eyes are on the final diplomatic efforts being exerted by Pakistan to maintain the ceasefire and achieve a peace deal. Time is pressing, as today, Friday, May 1, Pakistan expects a new peace proposal from Iran, following President Trump’s rejection of the previous version. Pakistani officials maintain that a fair agreement is feasible and that it is now up to Tehran to respond. However, the question lingering among an increasing number of experts and analysts is: what happens if Iran ultimately fails to provide a positive response?
From the U.S., reports indicate that the military option remains on the table, regardless of estimates that it would plunge the U.S. further into a dead end. The U.S. impasse and the resounding failure of the Trump strategy are reflected in the fact that while they pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, they demonstrate almost daily why a nuclear weapon is... absolutely essential for its survival as a state.
Optimism from Pakistan
As the standoff between Washington and Tehran lingers and the world waits with hope for a deal, the possibility of an alternative scenario—the resumption of war—hangs in the air. Time is of the essence, with Friday, May 1, regarded as the deadline for Pakistan to receive Iran’s revised peace proposal after U.S. President Donald Trump rejected an earlier draft. Mediators in Islamabad believe a fair deal is attainable and that it now depends on Tehran to respond, according to sources familiar with the process. They have worked tirelessly to reach an agreement, but as they waited most of the week for a response, the U.S. and Iran intensified their threats and provocations.
No more Mr. Nice Guy
Last Wednesday—the first day a response was expected from Tehran—Trump posted an image on Truth Socialshowing himself holding a gun, calling on Iranian leaders to "get serious." "No more Mr. Nice Guy," the caption read. Later, from the Oval Office, he added: "Right now, there will never be a deal unless they agree there will be no nuclear weapons."
Mojtaba Khamenei’s response
However, Iran responded decisively to this core demand. In a message, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei stated that Iran will "safeguard" its nuclear and missile capabilities and that "foreign actors" have no place in the Persian Gulf, except in "the depths of its waters." Iranians have yet to see or hear from Khamenei more than seven weeks after the announcement of his leadership following his father’s assassination—yet he has issued several written messages. Nevertheless, in statements today, Mohsen Qomi, an advisor to Mojtaba Khamenei, claimed the Supreme Leader is "perfectly fine" and overseeing the negotiations. According to him, Khamenei was injured in the U.S.-Israeli attacksthat killed his father, Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war. However, he had stepped out into the courtyard minutes before the bombing, which allowed him to survive. "This is an enemy ruse. They want to ask: why doesn't he appear? Why doesn't he send audio or condolence messages?" said Qomi, stating that Mojtaba Khamenei has instructed the negotiating team on "how to act in different situations." "He has full awareness and control of the situation," his advisor concluded.
Only I know...
These back-and-forth attacks seem to be pushing the two sides further apart, nearly four weeks after the temporary ceasefire. Late Thursday, 4/30, Trump stated that no one knows the true status of the negotiations except himself and a few others, implying that talks are moving forward despite the appearance of a deadlock. However, Iran’s nuclear capabilities remain a fundamental point of contention: Trump demands guarantees to limit the program, while Tehraninsists on the right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. This is a critical "red line" for both sides, leading to the impasse.
What Tehran and... Trump are betting on
Tehran appears to be playing for time, prolonging negotiations and submitting proposals with minor changes—perhaps hoping that Trump will tire or that domestic pressure from rising fuel prices will force him to back down. Conversely, Trump is reportedly considering options to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table, having been briefed by military officials on a potential new wave of attacks. His core strategy, according to sources, is the exercise of maximum economic pressure. His team is planning the expansion of the naval blockade of Iranian ports and even the possibility of a long-term closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. has already intercepted or diverted nearly 40 ships since the start of the blockade, with Trump declaring: "The blockade is genius." Meanwhile, they are pressuring other countries to join a new alliance for freedom of navigation, while both sides maintain blockades. Economic consequences are mounting: oil prices reached a four-year high and U.S. fuel prices are rising due to fears of the talks failing.
Intense dissatisfaction
The blockade is causing intense dissatisfaction in Tehran, with military officials and Mohsen Rezaei threatening retaliation. However, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, mocked the idea of a blockade, referring to the country's extensive borders: "If you build two walls in the U.S., the total length will be less than Iran’s borders," he wrote, adding ironically to Pete Hegseth: "1 km = 0.62 miles." It is unclear what will happen after Friday if Iran does not respond positively. The only certainty is that both sides are ready for a potential return to conflictif a deal is not reached.
Everything wrong from the U.S.
Recently, a former official of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, argued that everything was done wrong in the operation against Iran. Indeed, the U.S. and Israel have not achieved many of their key goals, such as regime changeand the establishment of a more friendly government. Instead, the radical Revolutionary Guards have consolidated their presence and now dominate not only the military but also the political life of Iran. But the failed U.S. strategy is also evident in the statements of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance shortly after the collapse of the latest negotiations with Iran, where he essentially showed exactly why Iran... must acquire a nuclear weapon. According to Bloomberg, U.S. Vice President JD Vance took a deep breath before stating that talks collapsed because the Islamic Republic refused to permanently rule out the possibility of acquiring a nuclear bomb. "The simple question is: do we see a fundamental commitment of will from the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon—not just now, not just in two years, but in the long term?" Vance told exhausted reporters shortly after dawn on April 12. "We haven't seen that yet."
Praise for Pakistan
Although Vance’s message was clear, the beginning of his four-minute briefing also highlighted for Iran the benefits of acquiring atomic weapons: he praised his hosts in Pakistan, which had defied global arms control efforts to build its own bomb and later helped Tehran develop enrichment capabilities. The architect of this secret cooperation, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was declared a hero in Pakistan and received a pardon in 2004, a day after confessing on television that he sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Years later, he expressed no remorse, saying he acted with the help of Pakistani leaders—a claim the government denies.
The great truth...
"Do not overlook the fact that no country with nuclear capabilities has been attacked, occupied, or seen its borders redrawn," Khan wrote in Newsweek in 2011, a decade before his death at age 85. "If Iraq and Libya had nukes, they would not have been destroyed as we have seen recently," he had said. This claim remains true today. Nuclear powersstill face small-scale conflicts and terrorism, but those that have crossed the threshold have avoided full-scale invasions or "decapitation" attacks like those carried out by the U.S. and Israel against Iran on February 28. A dozen more governments are close to acquiring the bomb, watching to see if worsening global security threats make the risk of sanctions or preemptive strikes worthwhile to obtain it.
Nuclear... dispute
Washington and Tehran are now in a standoff, with each betting the other will blink first, while simultaneously blocking the Strait of Hormuz, causing market turmoil and economic pain. The primary point of friction remains the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, with U.S. President Donald Trump calling on the country's new leadership to abandon it completely. Iran refused to back down: Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei promised this week to protect the country's nuclear and missile technology as well as its borders.
Even greater incentive
The experiences of Pakistan, India, and North Korea—the only countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that openly declare they possess nukes—show that Iran now has an even greater incentive to pursue nuclear deterrencein the long term. The country has lost much of its conventional weaponry, its armed allies in the region have suffered severe blows, and Trump has threatened to wipe out its civilization "that will never come back again." U.S.-Israeli attacks in the midst of diplomatic negotiations have also eroded faith that any agreement will prevent future strikes.
Suspicion
This suspicion toward the U.S. extends beyond Iran: even America's allies are revisiting discussions on nuclear options as Trump questions mutual defense treaties. In this environment, the perceived value of nuclear weapons—as a deterrent and a bargaining tool—is increasing rather than decreasing. And, unlike the Cold War era, it is unclear if anyone will even try to reverse it.
Message from the past
As states rushed to build nuclear arsenals in the 1950s, Irish Foreign Minister Frank Aiken felt the need to speak out. A veteran of Ireland's struggle for independence, he warned that global powers now possessed "the military resources to destroy themselves and to destroy us all." "Our problem then is how to contain our destructive forces," Aiken told the UN General Assembly in 1958. "How to avoid catastrophe and anarchy while evolving and perfecting the arts of peaceful coexistence." His statements helped shift the debate on atomic weapons and eventually led to the creation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty a decade later. The treaty limited the number of nuclear powers to five—U.S., Soviet Union, China, France, and the United Kingdom—while providing for disarmament negotiations and allowing other states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Not everyone was satisfied. India was a vocal critic of the treaty, arguing that it established "nuclear apartheid." In 1974, it became the first country outside the treaty to test a nuclear bomb in a "peaceful" operation called "Smiling Buddha." "We cannot accept the logic that a few nations have the right to ensure their security by threatening the survival of humanity," Indian leader Rajiv Gandhi told the UN in 1988.
The new powers
By the end of the century, most countries had ratified the Treaty—including South Africa, which developed and then dismantled its nukes before Nelson Mandela became president in 1994. North Korea in 2003 became the first—and only—country to withdraw from the treaty, shortly after U.S. President George W. Bush labeled it part of the "Axis of Evil." In contrast to his decision to strike Iran, Trump tried to convince North Korea to give up nukes through diplomacy, meeting its leader Kim Jong Un in 2018 in Singapore. The effort collapsed a year later in Hanoi due to a lack of trust.
Thousands of warheads
The collapse of the Soviet Union left thousands of nuclear warheads in countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Ukraine, anxious about future aggression, received only a security "assurance" in the Budapest Memorandum before handing over its weapons—a commitment that did not prevent the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2022. "I feel a personal responsibility because I convinced them to give up their nukes," former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in 2023. "And none of them believe Russia would dare such a thing if Ukraine still had them," Clinton said. International condemnation for "illegal" nuclear programs usually does not last long. U.S. sanctions on India and Pakistan after the 1998 tests were lifted days after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Today's challenge
Today, Trump faces the challenge of either committing to a prolonged war or convincing Iran that diplomacy and economic incentives are a more viable path to survival than nuclear deterrence. If Iran ultimately acquires nuclear weapons, other Middle Eastern powers—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey—may follow. This could trigger a mass withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Some analysts argue that a world with more nukes is safer, but Rajiv Gandhi rejected this view as "dangerous inertia," warning of risks from madmen, accidents, and "computers programmed for Armageddon." Aiken had issued a similar warning decades earlier, saying it would be "tragic" if smaller states acquired nuclear weapons. Unless the incentives change for Iran and other middle powers that can quickly build nuclear weapons, the world may soon find out.
Araghchi (Iranian FM): The Pentagon is lying - At least $100 billion the direct cost of war
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi charged that the Pentagon "is lying" about the economic cost of the war, which it placed at $25 billion. "Netanyahu's risk has already directly cost America 100 billion dollars, four times more than they claim," Araghchi wrote on platform X. "The indirect cost to American taxpayers is MUCH higher. The monthly bill for every American household is $500 and rising fast. 'Israel First' always means 'America Last,'" the Iranian Foreign Minister stated.
Hojjatoleslam Mohseni Ejei (Iran): We never abandoned negotiations
Hojjatoleslam Mohseni Ejei, head of the judiciary in Iran, maintained that Tehran never left the negotiating table. "The Islamic Republic of Iran never left the negotiating table, we have always supported dialogue, but a dialogue based on logic and prudence. Under no circumstances do we accept impositions. A negotiation based on imposition is not acceptable to us. This is a common position and consensus of the state authorities. Therefore, we clearly state that we accept dialogue, but not imposition," claimed Ejei. The head of the judiciary stated that an enemy who did not achieve its goals through attacks and threats cannot impose demands at the negotiating table either. "This is the firm position of the system and everyone, under the guidance of the supreme leadership, stresses that our diplomacy is a continuation of the field of action. Certainly, some may have different views with good intention. However, it is necessary that these are shaped within the framework of the general policies of the state and the highest national interests. We do not want war, but we do not fear it. If our dignity is threatened, we will fight for it. This is the firm position of our people, as reflected in the mass participation of over 30 million citizens in the 'we sacrifice for Iran' campaign," Ejei stressed.
Shock message from Mousavi (IRGC): We will burn your ships, as we burned your bases
For his part, the commander of the Aerospace Force, Majid Mousavi, launched new threats toward the U.S. "We have seen what happened to your regional bases, we will see the same happen to your warships," claimed Mousavi, referring to scenarios where the U.S. considers short and intense attacks. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei stated in a written message to Iranians that Tehran will eliminate "the abuses of enemies on the sea route" under new management of the strait, suggesting he intends to maintain control. "Foreigners who come from thousands of kilometers away... have no place there except at the bottom of the waters," Mojtaba Khamenei said in his message.
NBC: Iran utilizes ceasefire to recover weapons
American media reports indicate that Iran is utilizing the ceasefire with the U.S. to recover weapons that were previously hidden or buried under the rubble of attacks. The Iranian government has intensified efforts to retrieve missiles and other munitions that were hidden underground or buried in debris following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, according to NBC News, which cites a U.S. official and two other individuals with knowledge of the matter. The report states that U.S. officials believe Iran seeks to quickly restore its drone and missile capabilities so that it can launch attacks across the Middle East in case President Trump decides to resume military operations.
USS Gerald Ford departs from the Middle East
The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is set to depart from the Middle East in the coming days and return to Virginia. According to the Iranian news agency Tasnim, the aircraft carrier "USS Gerald R. Ford," after more than 300 days of mission, will leave the Middle East in the next few days and return to its base in Virginia. According to the Associated Press, the ship participated in the war against Iran and recorded the longest U.S. aircraft carrier mission in recent decades. Based on American media reports, the departure of the "Ford" is taking place due to wear and tear from the long mission, pressure on equipment, and the need for repairs.
Trump weighs his options: I want a big victory
Trump is considering options for the war with Iran as his trip to China approaches. American media report that the impending visit of the U.S. President to China may influence decision-making regarding the war with Iran. An anonymous White House official told NBC that the trip is one of the factors Trump considers as he weighs his options for Iran. The visit to China, now scheduled for May 14 and 15, is a "priority" that the White House in no way wants to postpone again, according to the same official. The New York Times also reports that the double blockades in the Strait of Hormuz and at Iran’s ports complicate the situation ahead of the "high-stakes" visit to China. Beijing has stated it wishes to play a "constructive role" in ending the war, while the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on several Chinese oil refineries and shipping companies, accusing them of trading Iranian oil, which is under U.S. sanctions. Like many neighboring countries, China imports much of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which has remained largely closed since early March.
Trump: Iran is dying for a deal...
Donald Trump, answering journalists' questions, appeared ambiguous as to whether a resumption of attacks is required: "I don't know if we need it. Maybe we'll need it," he said, implying that the situation remains fluid and depends on the moves of Tehran, which he said is "dying for a deal"... "We have already won, but I want a bigger victory," he stated, attempting to bolster the success narrative of American military action. Trump mentioned that U.S. forces have destroyed critical Iranian infrastructure, including naval and air capabilities, as well as radar systems and leadership structures. He also reiterated that Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon and that the price of gasoline—a key issue for the Republican Party ahead of the November midterms—will "plummet" once the war ends. Repeating accusations of serious rights violations by Iran, Trump stated he is "fine" with the country's participation in the upcoming World Cup soccer in the United States, after FIFA President Gianni Infantino insisted the country would take part. It is noted that among the options Trump is considering—according to Axios—is the use of ground forces to seize part of the Strait to reopen it for commercial shipping, the expansion of the U.S. blockade, or the declaration of a unilateral victory.
Richard Blumenthal (Democrats): The hour of the big decision is approaching
Democratic U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal said in a CNN interview that he has the "impression from some briefings," as well as other sources, that "an imminent military strike is very seriously on the table." He added that this prospect is "deeply disturbing," as it could "endanger American young men and women" and lead to "potential mass casualties." "I can't be more specific, because I received at least one of those briefings—actually several—in a classified setting. But I'm not saying for certain when it could happen, just that it's very seriously on the table as a potential plan," said Blumenthal, who added that this "should not surprise anyone, because the military leaders involved in this effort have been talking about it for a long time."
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments