Iran’s accusation that the United States violated the April 8 ceasefire after fresh American strikes in Hormozgan has complicated an already fragile peace push, even as Secretary of State Marco Rubio says negotiators may need “a few days” to settle the language of an initial framework.

The American position is that the strikes were defensive, aimed at boats laying mines and missile launch sites in southern Iran. Tehran calls them proof of bad faith. That gap captures the difficulty facing the emerging US-Iran arrangement: the parties are still exchanging fire while trying to write the terms of a pause that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, address Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and defer the hardest questions to later rounds.

The proposed arrangement, still unfinalised and awaiting approval in Washington and Tehran, appears to be a holding framework rather than a final settlement. It would restore traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and create a mechanism for addressing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, while leaving long-term enrichment limits, missile capabilities and sanctions relief for later negotiations. That is why the debate in Washington has turned so sharp.

More and more analysts are of the view that Democrats can criticise the war as reckless, question the deal as inadequate, or accept that a negotiated exit may be the only way to stop the costs from widening.

More and more analysts are of the view that Democrats can criticise the war as reckless, question the deal as inadequate, or accept that a negotiated exit may be the only way to stop the costs from widening.

Congress has now become one of the arenas in which the proposed framework will be tested. Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to social media to warn that a 60-day ceasefire based on........

© Daily Times