The Malta-flagged oil tanker Odessa, carrying 1 million barrels of crude oil, heads toward Daesan Port in Seosan, South Chungcheong, in the Yellow Sea on May 8. The Odessa was the first crude oil carrier to arrive in Korea after passing through the Strait of Hormuz since the Iran war escalated.KIM KYUNG-ROK
Park Hyun-do
The author is a professor at the Sogang Institute for Euro-MENA Studies at Sogang University.
More than 100 days have passed since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, but no clear end is in sight. Although a cease-fire remains in effect, the two sides engaged in their most serious clash since the truce last week.
After the U.S. Central Command intercepted drones threatening maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and later struck military facilities and oil tankers near Iran's Qeshm Island, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on U.S. military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent then said that Washington would assess damage suffered by Gulf allies and consider whether frozen Iranian assets could be used for reconstruction funding.
Iran strongly objected. Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran's supreme leader, declared that the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets was a condition for ending the war. He also warned that if Washington did not lift its blockade of Hormuz, Tehran could expand the conflict to the Indian Ocean, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Mediterranean.
The exchange fueled fears that the cease-fire could collapse. But U.S. President Donald Trump reacted with notable restraint. Rather than escalating tensions, he argued that Iran's response had been provoked by U.S. attacks and that the cease-fire would hold as long as no U.S. troops were killed.
Trump even described Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei as someone more open to dialogue than his father, Ali Khamenei, and expressed interest in meeting him. The comments marked a striking shift from rhetoric only weeks earlier, when he threatened harsh measures against Iran and even Oman for supporting Tehran.
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson and Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar claim to have learned from a senior Pakistani source about a recent phone conversation between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
According to their account, Pezeshkian conveyed three messages. First, Iran would withdraw from all nuclear negotiations if hostilities did not stop immediately. Second, future discussions with Washington would be limited to matters directly related to security in the Strait of Hormuz. Third, if pressure from the United States and Israel continued, Iran was prepared to conduct a nuclear weapons test on its own territory. Such a test, they reportedly said, would demonstrate strategic capability rather than constitute an act of war.
Because the conversation was likely conducted over an unsecured line, Johnson believes intelligence agencies such as the CIA, Britain’s MI6 and Israel's Mossad probably intercepted it.
If the account is accurate, a major question follows: How did Iran acquire such a capability?
Johnson argues that Iran may have reconsidered its previous restraints after the U.S. and Israeli attacks in February. He believes Tehran most likely developed the capability itself but did not rule out possible assistance from Russia, China, Pakistan or North Korea in the form of technology or equipment.
Johnson further contends that Washington and Israel altered their posture after receiving Pezeshkian's warning. In his view, the White House regarded the message as credible enough to warrant caution.
The alleged conversation cannot be independently verified and may remain impossible to confirm for years. Nevertheless, Trump's recent statements suggest at least a subtle change in tone.
There are also signs that neither side expects an immediate return to full-scale fighting. Iran recently announced that funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei, delayed because of the war, will take place over several days in Tehran, Qom and Mashhad later this month. Some observers interpret the decision as evidence that Tehran does not anticipate a renewed conflict in the near term, though such conclusions remain speculative.
Trump continues to insist that negotiations are progressing and that both countries want an agreement. Markets have already begun pricing in expectations of peace and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran, however, maintains that it is not negotiating directly with Washington. Pakistan continues to act as an intermediary and diplomats speak of tentative understandings, but no significant breakthrough has emerged. The conflict increasingly resembles a stalemate, raising concerns that it could drag on in a manner similar to the Russia-Ukraine war.
The United States possesses considerable leverage to end the conflict and stabilize the Middle East. But doing so may require confronting Israel, whose government appears unwilling to bring the war to a close. Unless Washington is prepared to limit military, intelligence and economic support, critics argue, the conflict may continue at a low intensity indefinitely.
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense and former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman argues that the war is already reshaping regional politics. According to Freeman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey are exploring a security framework that would reduce dependence on outside powers and allow regional states to manage relations with Iran themselves.
He also contends that Washington should focus less on supplying weapons to Israel and more on advancing a concrete Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement with clearly defined borders. Because the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains central to regional stability, he sees it as inseparable from efforts to resolve the war.
With numerous actors involved and multiple disputes still unresolved, a clear path to peace remains difficult to find. As the North American World Cup approaches its opening on Thursday, hopes for a formal end to the conflict remain uncertain.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
