US and Israel signal shift toward negotiations with adversaries — what’s behind it?

Former US President Donald Trump has announced that new negotiations with Iran may take place. However, the US Senate has rejected a resolution aimed at halting the war with Iran. Iran is also demanding compensation from several Arab states. Meanwhile, Israeli and Lebanese representatives have held what is being described as a historic meeting — the first direct diplomatic contact between the two countries since 1993. These developments raise questions: do the parties that initiated the conflict now seek compromise out of concern? Why has Israel, which launched strikes on Lebanon shortly after a ceasefire between the US and Iran, now shown interest in reconciliation? Does Israel genuinely seek peace? This analysis attempts to explore these questions based on recent developments.

On April 15, Donald Trump stated that new negotiations with Iran could take place within the next 48 hours. The meeting is likely to be held in Pakistan, which has recently emerged as a key mediator and previously hosted diplomatic engagements between the parties. In a phone interview with the New York Post, Trump said that significant developments could occur in the coming days if both sides remain in Pakistan. He also praised the role of Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir, noting that his efforts have increased the likelihood of renewed talks.

The next round of negotiations is expected to include US Vice President JD Vance, as well as special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. They also participated in the previous meeting in Islamabad, which lasted 21 hours but ended without results. The main issues under discussion — Iran’s nuclear program and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz — remained unresolved.

Many observers had anticipated this outcome. Iran’s demands challenge decades of US policy, while the conditions proposed by Trump and his allies undermine Iran’s key strategic advantages. From a practical standpoint, both sides appeared to be making mutually incompatible demands. Following this, the United States announced the start of measures to block access to the maritime route.

On April 13, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, US naval forces started stopping vessels attempting to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump warned that any vessel approaching the blockade could be destroyed immediately. He stated that US forces would act “quickly and decisively.” He also claimed that Iranian vessels had already been eliminated, adding that smaller boats — described as “fast attack” craft — were not targeted because they were not considered a threat. He further warned that any such vessels approaching the blockade would be destroyed “quickly and without hesitation.”

Iran responded sharply to these statements. Senior military adviser Mohsen Rezaei said the US blockade was “doomed to fail” and emphasized that Iran’s armed forces have substantial capabilities to respond to any threat.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz — through which approximately 15–20 percent of global oil and more than 30 percent of liquefied natural gas pass — has heightened concerns and contributed to rising oil prices. However, despite the announced blockade, a Chinese tanker reportedly passed through the strait on April 14 without obstruction. This has led to skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the US measures.

The tanker that passed through the blockade reportedly belongs to SHANGHAI XUANRUN, a company under US sanctions due to cooperation with Iran. The vessel was carrying approximately 250,000 barrels of ethanol, which had been loaded at a port in the United Arab Emirates.

Subsequently, a large Iranian oil tanker also reportedly crossed the blockade successfully. According to the Fars news agency, the supertanker — capable of carrying up to 2 million barrels of oil — reached its destination without obstruction. The vessel moved through open waters, passed the Strait of Hormuz, and activated its positioning system upon entering Iranian territorial waters. These developments may indicate that the blockade has had limited practical impact. Against this backdrop, the United States may be seeking to initiate a second round of negotiations. However, the US Senate rejected a resolution aimed at halting military operations against Iran. The proposal would have required congressional approval before continuing the war. It was supported by 47 senators, opposed by 52, and one senator abstained. The measure, introduced by Democratic lawmakers, was the fourth such initiative this year, all of which have failed in the Senate due to Republican majority control.

Under the US Constitution, the authority to declare war rests with Congress. However, many US policymakers argue that this requirement does not fully apply to short-term military operations or situations involving immediate threats. Earlier this year, both chambers of Congress — the House of Representatives and the Senate — also rejected a resolution that would have prevented Trump from conducting operations against Iran without congressional approval. At that time, 53 senators and 219 members of the House voted against the measure.

It has also been officially reported that 399 US service members were injured during the conflict involving Iran. However, some analysts suggest that the actual figure may be significantly higher.

Iran demands compensation from neighboring states

The Iranian government has formally demanded compensation from five Arab states — Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan — for their alleged role in US and Israeli military operations. Tehran submitted an official appeal to the United Nations, stating that these countries should be held accountable. Iran claims they allowed their territories to be used for attacks and, in some cases, directly participated in strikes, including those targeting civilian facilities. As a result, Iran has characterized these actions as “aggression” under international law and is demanding full compensation for both material and moral damages. However, the Gulf states and Jordan have rejected these accusations and denied any involvement in military operations against Iran.

Israel signals willingness for talks

At a time when the US and Iran are pursuing diplomatic efforts, Israel — which had intensified strikes on Lebanon — has unexpectedly entered negotiations. On April 14, Israeli and Lebanese representatives began talks in Washington. The term “unexpected” reflects the sudden shift in Israel’s position toward dialogue, rather than any positive interpretation of the conflict itself. This marks the first direct diplomatic contact between the two countries since 1993.

The meeting was attended by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter, and Lebanon’s ambassador, Nada Hamade Moawad. It has been described as the highest-level direct engagement between representatives of the two countries.

At the conclusion of the talks, both sides expressed readiness to take steps toward peace and indicated willingness to begin direct negotiations in the future. However, the timing and location of further talks have yet to be determined. The US State Department described the meeting as a “historic stage” and expressed hope that it could lead to a comprehensive peace agreement.

At the same time, US officials reaffirmed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against ongoing attacks by Hezbollah. They emphasized that any ceasefire agreement must be negotiated between the governments of Israel and Lebanon, with US mediation. Washington also noted that such negotiations could contribute to Lebanon’s reconstruction, economic development, and expanded investment opportunities for both countries.

Lebanon’s ambassador highlighted the need for concrete agreements on a ceasefire, the return of displaced citizens, and measures to address the country’s deep humanitarian crisis.

Israel, for its part, called for the disarmament of all non-state armed groups and the dismantling of militant infrastructure in Lebanon. It also expressed readiness to cooperate with Lebanon to ensure security for both countries.

At present, these statements remain largely formal and diplomatic in nature, and it is not yet possible to assess their practical impact. However, the question remains: does Israel genuinely seek peace?

The “Greater Israel” concept

Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are increasingly seen as extending beyond issues of territorial security or operations against groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. By April 2026, the scale of military activity has led some analysts to openly discuss a long-term and potentially far-reaching strategic vision often referred to as “Greater Israel.” If Iran is defeated or neutralized, some analysts question which country could become the next focal point — with particular attention being directed toward Turkey.

The concept of “Greater Israel” is often associated with certain right-wing political and ideological circles. It is based on historical and religious narratives, including the notion of territory “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” and envisions a significant expansion of Israel’s borders. This concept is said to include parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and southeastern regions of Turkey.

Recent statements by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have suggested that Israeli actions may not be limited to Palestine, and that future ambitions could extend further. Israel’s ongoing military operations in Lebanon — including intensified strikes in April 2026 — have been interpreted by some analysts as part of a broader strategic approach that could bring it closer to Turkey’s borders. If Iran’s regional role is weakened, Turkey may remain one of the primary powers capable of counterbalancing Israel’s influence.

Historical references to expanded territorial visions have appeared in political discourse, including maps and statements attributed to certain Israeli officials. For example, past remarks by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich referencing broader territorial claims have generated international debate. Today, some observers argue that these ideas appear increasingly aligned with military developments. Israel’s rising defense budget in recent years, along with continued US military assistance exceeding $3.8 billion annually, is also viewed by some analysts as reinforcing these strategic capabilities.

From a strategic perspective, Iran is often considered the central pillar of regional resistance dynamics. If diplomatic efforts fail and Iran faces direct military confrontation, the regional balance of power could shift significantly. A weakened Iran could create a power vacuum in parts of Iraq and Syria, particularly in northern areas, which some analysts believe could become zones of increased strategic competition. These developments may also raise concerns for Turkey, particularly in relation to regional security, water resources, and energy routes.

Overall, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. Military developments and diplomatic initiatives are unfolding simultaneously, and the long-term outcome remains uncertain. The coming months are likely to determine how the regional balance evolves and whether current tensions will lead to further escalation or stabilization.