In light of the regional entanglements and the complexities of negotiations between the major powers and Iran, indications are increasing that the region is entering a very sensitive political and security phase, where military calculations intertwine with diplomacy, and the possibilities of escalation or freeze are increasing.
In this context, the writer and political analyst specializing in Iranian affairs, Tawfiq Shoman, provides an in-depth reading of the scene from the perspective of the “double war” and the complex negotiation paths and their repercussions on the region and the United States.
Schuman points out in an interview with: that the negotiations are practically stalled and therefore stuck, and that we are facing two wars, each war with its own negotiations, personalities, and strategies.
He explains that the first war is the American-Israeli aggression against Iran, and it has a negotiating path known for its general headings, from the nuclear file and the missile program to American relations with its allies in the region, and it is a different path from the path associated with the second war, the Strait of Hormuz War, which also has its own headings, details, policies and strategies different from the first war. Therefore, Tehran believes, as Schuman explains, that any negotiations on the nuclear file, in order to succeed, must be preceded by a result on the Strait of Hormuz negotiations, as no progress can be made in the special negotiations between the United States and Iran without a final solution to the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, we are facing two different negotiating tracks: the first relates to the Strait of Hormuz, and if the two parties reach a conclusion regarding it, we can move to the nuclear file and other issues.
Regarding the American build-ups in Tel Aviv and the military movements that suggest the approach of war again in light of faltering negotiations, Schuman confirms that the option of war is strongly on the table. The current situation is “no negotiations and no war,” but this does not mean that peace prevails. Rather, it is a state of waiting that may lead to the resumption of war or to other results.
He points out that for the Israelis, after the failure of a round of negotiations that was supposed to be held about a week ago, they declared a state of emergency and considered themselves in a state of readiness to complete what they call “the third chapter of the war,” which began in June 2005 and was repeated in February 2026. They are now preparing for a third war whose timing no one knows, but they are waiting for the American decision regarding war or not, so they declared a state of emergency and high-level alert.
As for the attempt to target Trump, and consider it a political and security game to serve his political path, he believes that this is a point of view that is matched by another point of view, but the first point of view is not expected to be correct. Historically, a number of American presidents have been subjected to assassination attempts. Four presidents were killed, the last of whom was John Kennedy in 1963. President Ronald Reagan was subjected to an assassination attempt and was almost killed, as was Obama, as if it were a pattern in the American presidential scene. He points out that some may link the assassination attempt to American foreign issues, but there is no data on that. However, it depends on the conflict between American political parties, and the truth about whether the attempt was planned or not may be revealed after a while.
Regarding Trump’s chances in the upcoming midterm elections, he explains that external influence on the results of the American elections, whether presidential or congressional, is usually limited, as internal factors are the most influential. Historically, the United States has fought multiple wars, such as the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and these wars did not lead to a radical change in the election results. Therefore, linking the results of the American elections to the ongoing foreign wars is not entirely accurate, as the priority for the American voter remains internal issues, despite the presence of economic and political repercussions of some wars on the American interior. Therefore, this link between elections and wars must be approached with caution, because it is not always based on direct or deterministic equations.
