President Donald Trump said Tuesday that there were “no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled” with Iran and that the US naval blockade remained in force.
A White House official told Semafor that Trump’s Truth Social post amounted to calling off talks with Iran for the foreseeable future.
The message appeared to contradict Jared Kushner, who just a day earlier described contacts with different parts of the Iranian government as unusually “robust” and spoke of “very positive and active conversations.”
The IRGC, meanwhile, has denied Trump’s claim that US officials were holding back-channel talks with Revolutionary Guard officials.
The conflicting accounts underscore one of the central uncertainties after the 60-day deadline passed: how much of the confrontation visible in public reflects what may be happening behind the scenes.
Interviews with three analysts and former officials suggest the end of the 60-day period does not necessarily leave Washington with a binary choice between launching another major offensive and walking away.
A third possibility is emerging: an extended and highly unstable holding pattern in which Washington intensifies economic pressure, maintains the blockade and avoids a return to the intensive military campaign seen earlier in the conflict, while retaining the option of renewed strikes.
Neither war nor peace
Former US Ambassador John Craig said he believes Trump has been persuaded by his military and foreign-policy advisers that further major military action would not necessarily resolve the conflict, particularly the nuclear issue.
“I think this is going to go on for quite a while, simply because there doesn't seem to be any other alternative,” Craig told Iran International.
Craig described that status quo as one in which the United States continues trying to keep ships, oil and goods moving through the Strait of Hormuz while Iran carries out lower-level attacks and probes against regional targets, all without a meaningful diplomatic process capable of producing an agreement.
“So no peace,” Craig said. “Not very high level of attacks and kinetic actions, but still no agreement and no process — even more important, no process to find an agreement.”
But Craig stressed that what is visible may tell only part of the story.
He said it is impossible to know what preparations could be taking place during the apparent lull, including whether new targeting packages are being assembled, intelligence operations are underway or assistance is being provided to people inside Iran.
“We don't know everything that is going on,” Craig said.
Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, similarly said the current situation could persist well beyond the end of the 60-day period.
“I have the growing feeling that this status quo could persist for some time,” Berman told Iran International.
One reason, he said, is domestic US politics. With midterm elections approaching, the opportunity for attempting a quick and decisive conclusion to the conflict may already have passed.
Instead, Washington may increasingly conclude that time is on its side.
Berman said countries around the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and elsewhere are also using this period to build infrastructure and alternative transport corridors aimed at reducing vulnerabilities exposed by the conflict, particularly the dependence of global trade on the Strait of Hormuz.
“This isn't a great situation,” Berman said, “but time ends up working for Washington and not for Tehran.”
Can economic pressure break the stalemate?
Iran's economy is already under extraordinary pressure.
Iran's annual inflation reached 66% in July, while food prices rose 128% year-on-year, according to the Statistical Center of Iran, severely eroding household purchasing power.
Those pressures are being compounded by sanctions, the naval blockade, disruption to Iran's energy trade and the prospect of another round of US economic measures.
For Washington, that raises the possibility that time itself, combined with escalating economic pressure, could accomplish what another major military offensive may not.
Berman described Iran's economic crisis as potentially “the transformative variant,” arguing that the danger for the government grows as the rial loses value, purchasing power collapses and basic foods become increasingly unaffordable.
“This is not a sustainable condition,” he said.
But he cautioned that economic deterioration does not automatically produce political upheaval. Tehran can attempt to soften the impact through currency measures, trade arrangements and other economic interventions.
What has changed, Berman argued, is the nature of the leadership confronting those pressures. He described the current system as increasingly rigid and militarized, leaving it potentially less willing to prioritize domestic economic development.
Casey Babb, a senior fellow and director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, described the current moment as a “very uncertain and fragile holding pattern.”
He said Washington could combine substantially greater economic pressure with military capabilities it has so far chosen not to fully deploy.
But Babb cautioned that economic warfare carries consequences far beyond Iran's leadership.
“There is a human cost to that as well,” he said. “Innocent Iranians are going to suffer from that as well and already are.”
Babb said the United States clearly does not want a costly conventional ground war, while Iran's leadership has shown little indication that it is prepared to make the concessions Washington is seeking.
“It will take something probably quite significant for the regime to behave differently,” Babb said.
When does the shooting start again?
None of the analysts interviewed for this story suggested the current lull means the military confrontation is over.
Berman went further, saying he expects US strikes against Iran to happen again.
“The question to me is not whether or not there are going to be strikes again, because I think there will be,” he said.
The more important question, he argued, is whether future attacks remain limited actions designed to restore deterrence — what he described as “knuckle wraps” — or become the beginning of another major phase of the war.
Berman described the confrontation as an increasingly prolonged battle of wills, contrasting it with what he said Washington had initially envisioned as a shorter conflict similar to its campaign in Venezuela.
That creates another danger.
Unlike during the Cold War, he said, Washington and Tehran lack reliable lines of communication specifically designed to keep tactical confrontations from escalating into something much larger.
The result may be neither war nor peace.
Berman compared the current moment to the end of the second act of a three-act play — the point when the action temporarily slows before the pace picks up again.
But the apparent lull may be deceptive.
As Craig emphasized, intelligence operations, military targeting and other preparations could be taking place beyond public view. Diplomatic contacts may also be more complicated than the conflicting public statements from Washington and Tehran suggest.
The visible status quo could persist for some time.
What is happening underneath it — and what eventually breaks it — is much harder to know.”