Lead

US pressure on Iran is unlikely to ease until Washington achieves its core objectives, according to Professor Canan Terjan, an international relations expert at Istanbul Aydin University, in an interview with TASS. Her remarks come amid a US-Iran ceasefire announced by President Donald Trump and ongoing peace talks in Islamabad.

Coverage Comparison

Reports from TASS, the Russian state news agency, feature two separate expert analyses. The first, from Istanbul, focuses on US motivations and Israel's war aims. The second, from Bangkok, emphasizes the global implications of the negotiations. Both analysts agree the ceasefire is conditional and may not hold, but they differ on its significance: the Turkish expert sees it as a possible pause before renewed conflict, while the Thai expert views it as evidence of a shift in global power dynamics.

Key Claims

  • US objectives: "The United States will not give up on Iran. They have spent too much money and have so far received nothing in return," Terjan told TASS. She argued that even if a ceasefire is reached, its durability depends on whether developments align with US interests. "If the situation does not develop in the US’s interests, they will resume the war," she said.
  • US aims: Terjan stated that reopening the Strait of Hormuz would not be sufficient for Washington. "The US seeks to gain control over oil or install a loyal regime in Iran," she said.
  • Israel's plans: Terjan claimed that Israel's war plans are linked to territorial gains and that achieving regime change in Iran is "critically important" for Israel because Iranian support restricts Israel's operations in Lebanon and Gaza.
  • Ceasefire details: Trump announced a two-week mutual ceasefire on April 7, saying most contentious issues have been resolved and that Washington considers Tehran's ten-point proposals as a working basis for talks. Iran agreed to halt retaliatory attacks provided no strikes are carried out against the Islamic republic.
  • Global power shift: Roostum Vansu, a Thai expert at Prince of Songkhla University, said the Islamabad talks represent "a broader restructuring of power in the Middle East—one that the United States is compelled to accept, albeit reluctantly."
  • US and Israel failure: Vansu claimed the US and Israel suffered "comprehensive failure across all dimensions" in their war objectives, including regime change, which instead reinforced the Iranian government's stability. He also cited Iranian asymmetric warfare as inflicting damage on US assets and triggering a global energy crisis.
  • Ten-point plan significance: Vansu said implementation of Iran's ten-point plan "would signify a near-total strategic defeat" for the US.
  • Energy and security: Vansu suggested negotiations could resolve the global energy crisis by reopening the Strait of Hormuz, lowering oil prices, and easing inflation in the US and Europe. He also sees an opportunity to establish a new regional security architecture less dependent on external powers.

Perspectives

Both experts operate from a geopolitical-realist lens, but with differing emphases. Terjan's analysis is pragmatic: US actions are driven by self-interest, and any ceasefire is conditional. Vansu's perspective is more structural: the negotiations signal a systemic shift away from US dominance in the Middle East. Neither source provides a US or Iranian official response to these expert claims, and all assertions are presented as the analysts' opinions.

As of this writing, the ceasefire appears to be holding, but both experts caution that it is not a guarantee of lasting peace. The outcome of the talks, and the fate of Iran's ten-point plan, will determine whether this is a genuine diplomatic breakthrough or a temporary lull.