Trump: An Agreement Is Still Possible Despite the Expanding Military Operations

B | BETH

The United States carried out a third consecutive night of military strikes against targets inside Iran, in an escalation that threatens the future of the memorandum of understanding intended to end the war and reopen the path to negotiations.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that the latest operations targeted new Iranian military sites, stressing that the strikes will continue to "inflict significant losses on Iranian forces and weaken their ability to attack commercial vessels and innocent civilians in the Strait of Hormuz."

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that reaching an agreement with Tehran remains possible despite the continued military operations and the reimposition of restrictions on Iranian ports.

Trump said Washington had been close to reaching an agreement two days earlier, but that the Iranian side had withdrawn, adding that negotiations must continue.

BETH Analysis

Today's developments suggest that military operations and negotiations are no longer opposing tracks. Instead, each is being used to reinforce the other.

The United States continues to apply military pressure to weaken Iran's capabilities and increase the cost of prolonging the confrontation, while simultaneously keeping the door to an agreement open.

At the same time, Tehran faces a more complex equation as it confronts continuing strikes while attempting to preserve enough negotiating leverage to avoid an agreement based entirely on American terms.

As a result, the current conflict appears to be less about achieving a rapid military victory and more about reshaping the balance of negotiations.

If the strikes continue alongside ongoing political messaging, military operations may increasingly become a tool for redefining the terms of a future agreement rather than replacing diplomacy altogether.

If negotiations fail, however, continued attrition could push the region into a more complex phase in which military operations become increasingly intertwined with political and economic pressure.

War does not always end when the shooting stops.

Sometimes it continues even while negotiations are underway.

The question today is no longer:

Will Washington choose war or an agreement?

Instead, it is:

Is it using war to reach an agreement, or using an agreement to manage the war?

In major conflicts, the negotiating table and the battlefield can become part of the same struggle, where the tools differ, but the objective remains the same.