Diplomatic efforts are continuing, with Qatar and Pakistan pushing for an agreement and The New Arab reporting Monday, citing sources familiar with mediation efforts, that a breakthrough could be announced this week.
The analysts interviewed by Iran International were more cautious, however, seeing little evidence that either side has made the concessions required for a broader agreement and identifying the coming elections as a factor that could shape the timing of diplomacy or renewed military action.
Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist and former head of the Iran branch in Israeli Defense Intelligence, said continuing diplomatic exchanges did not amount to evidence of an imminent breakthrough because neither side appeared ready to make the compromise required for one.
"In order to have a breakthrough, one side needs to show significant compromise. And I don't see that in the Iranian side," he told Iran International.
Washington wants substantial restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, while Tehran is prioritizing relief from the US blockade and sanctions, alongside the restoration of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that Tehran's seven-day proposal remained on the table. Under the proposal, Iran would reopen the strait within seven days if Washington accepted Tehran's conditions, paving the way for renewed negotiations.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, saw greater scope for a limited arrangement than a comprehensive settlement, arguing that both Trump and Tehran have short-term incentives to reduce tensions without resolving their fundamental differences.
Trump, he argued, faces political pressure ahead of the November 3 midterm elections and could benefit from a diplomatic achievement. Tehran, meanwhile, needs economic relief as the blockade continues to undermine its finances.
"You might have a deal that could create ceasefire conditions for a short period of time, of weeks and months," Vatanka told Iran International.
But he said he had seen little indication that Tehran was willing to accept the kind of comprehensive agreement Trump could present as a major improvement over the 2015 nuclear deal.
Iran's leadership, Vatanka argued, believes it has paid a heavy price for its nuclear program while demonstrating its ability to disrupt the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz. Economic pressures could encourage a narrow agreement, but sweeping concessions risk exposing divisions within the Islamic Republic's leadership.
A deal under the threat of force
The diplomatic activity comes as US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have intensified warnings of renewed military action.
On Sunday, Trump threatened to "soon finish the job" against Iran unless Tehran changed course, while giving Netanyahu his endorsement ahead of Israel's October 27 election.
Netanyahu, who has explicitly identified the removal of the Islamic Republic as an Israeli objective, has said Israel is prepared to act independently of Washington if necessary.
On Monday, Netanyahu released a video of a telephone conversation with Trump following the US president's endorsement of his reelection campaign.
"Donald, we have a job to finish, you said it, and we'll finish it together. We'll finish it, and no one else will do it," Netanyahu told Trump.
Shayan Samii, a geopolitical and national security analyst, said Trump's combination of negotiations and military threats allowed him to preserve both outcomes: claiming a diplomatic victory if talks succeed or demonstrating resolve through military action if they fail.
"The United States wants to keep the diplomatic avenue still open and valid. Why? Because it helps for domestic political purposes," Samii told Iran International.
"It allows Trump to say, I'm giving diplomacy all the chances in the world, but at the same time I'm keeping the pressure on them."
He also interpreted Trump's endorsement of Netanyahu as an attempt to increase Washington's leverage over the Israeli leader should he remain in power.
Samii suggested Iran or its regional allies could provoke a confrontation ahead of Israel's election, potentially providing a pretext for renewed strikes. He presented this as a possible scenario, not evidence of a planned operation.
Russia could influence the diplomatic track
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's visit to Tehran on Monday added another dimension to the diplomatic maneuvering.
Vatanka said Russia possesses considerably greater leverage over Iran than mediators such as Pakistan, Qatar or Oman, partly because Tehran depends on Moscow for diplomatic support.
That influence could become significant if negotiations require difficult concessions, including a possible arrangement to transfer Iran's highly enriched uranium to Russia.
But Vatanka questioned whether Moscow's interests necessarily aligned with Tehran's.
Russia would mediate "primarily to use it to get what Putin wants from Trump on the Ukraine front," he said.
Vatanka suggested Moscow could seek concessions from Washington over Ukraine in exchange for helping facilitate an agreement with Iran.
Tehran, however, may resist being used as a bargaining chip, particularly if Russian pressure requires abandoning positions the Islamic Republic considers fundamental.
Why the post-election period could prove decisive
If diplomacy fails to produce a breakthrough, Citrinowicz sees renewed escalation as increasingly difficult to avoid — but the elections may affect when it happens.
"With no breakthroughs, escalation is inevitable, because the status quo is unstable," he said.
He cautioned, however, that inevitable did not necessarily mean imminent.
The upcoming elections could influence the timing of any military operation. Israelis vote on October 27, followed by the US midterms on November 3.
Citrinowicz identified the period after the November 3 US midterms but before the newly elected Congress takes office in January as a possible window for military action, particularly if Republicans lose control of one or both chambers.
Vatanka similarly identified the post-election period as a potential turning point, arguing that Washington and Israel could consider additional pressure against Tehran once immediate electoral calculations had passed.
He said options could include continued enforcement of the blockade, limited military strikes and other measures designed to weaken or divide the Iranian establishment.
Yet the prospect of renewed military action raises a deeper question: whether Trump and Netanyahu ultimately seek the same outcome.
Citrinowicz argued that while the two leaders might agree on military targets, their strategic objectives could diverge.
"Netanyahu seeks to topple the regime, and Trump seeks to reach a good agreement with the same regime that Netanyahu seeks to topple," he said.
"Operationally, maybe there will be eye to eye in terms of what to attack, but strategically, I'm not sure if they see eye to eye."
That divergence leaves a central question unresolved: even if Washington and Israel agree on another round of strikes, they may not agree on what those strikes are ultimately meant to achieve.
