A Foreign Affairs analysis warning that President Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy cannot deliver lasting peace in West Asia has gained fresh relevance as the United States and Iran pause attacks and mediators attempt to reopen a path toward negotiations.

The July 22 essay, written by Neil Quilliam and Sanam Vakil, argues that limited deals can stop violence temporarily, secure hostage exchanges or establish negotiating windows. But when those arrangements become substitutes for sustained diplomacy, the authors contend, they leave the causes of conflict intact and give adversaries time to prepare for another confrontation.

That concern now hangs over the latest lull between Washington and Tehran. The Associated Press reported Sunday that the United States and Iran had refrained from attacks for a second consecutive day. Regional mediators were working to revive an interim arrangement and address navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway connecting Persian Gulf energy producers with global markets.

The pause offers an immediate reduction in risk after another period of U.S. strikes, Iranian retaliation and threats to commercial shipping. It may also indicate that both sides recognize the rising military and economic costs of continued escalation. But neither government has presented the lull as a comprehensive settlement resolving the disputes that produced the conflict.

Foreign Affairs’ central argument is that Trump’s diplomatic style is designed to produce visible, near-term exchanges: one side stops a specific action, the other offers relief or restraint, and the president announces a deal. Such arrangements can be useful during emergencies. The problem, according to the analysis, emerges when leaders treat the transaction itself as the peace process rather than as its first step.

The earlier U.S.-Iran understanding illustrates that distinction. It was intended to halt fighting, facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and establish a limited period for further talks. Yet the agreement deferred the hardest issues, including Iran’s nuclear activities, its missile capabilities, sanctions, maritime authority, the regional military balance and the role of armed groups aligned with Tehran.

When violence returned and commerce through the strait was again threatened, the agreement’s narrow structure provided few mechanisms for containing the crisis. Washington and Tehran remained deeply suspicious of each other’s intentions, while each side viewed coercive measures as necessary protection against the other.

This security dilemma extends beyond the bilateral relationship. Iran presents its missiles, nuclear capacity and network of regional partners as defenses against U.S. or Israeli attack. The United States and Israel view those same capabilities as threats requiring sanctions, deterrence or military action. Each response therefore reinforces the fears used to justify the other side’s behavior.

Foreign Affairs argues that this pattern is especially dangerous in West Asia because the region’s conflicts are interconnected. Pressure on Iran can affect shipping in the Persian Gulf, attacks by armed groups in Yemen can threaten Red Sea commerce, fighting involving Israel can reshape Gulf diplomacy, and actions in one theater can trigger retaliation against U.S. forces or partners elsewhere.

A narrow agreement focused only on stopping attacks for several days may therefore be vulnerable to events outside the immediate U.S.-Iran channel. A missile launch, maritime incident, Israeli operation or action by an Iran-aligned group could quickly reopen hostilities unless negotiators have established communication systems, enforcement procedures and shared understandings about responsibility.

The latest negotiations appear centered in part on safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. That objective has clear U.S. economic importance. The strait is one of the world’s most consequential energy chokepoints, and disruption can affect oil prices, shipping insurance, freight expenses and consumer inflation far beyond the region.

For Trump, restoring reliable maritime traffic could provide a measurable diplomatic success. It would reduce pressure on energy markets and demonstrate that military coercion produced negotiations. Yet an arrangement limited to shipping rules would not necessarily settle the nuclear dispute or prevent renewed attacks elsewhere.

The administration also faces difficult questions about credibility. Tehran must decide whether Washington would honor sanctions relief or security assurances after compliance. Gulf partners must assess whether the United States will defend them consistently during future crises. Israel must determine whether a U.S.-Iran compromise adequately addresses its security concerns. Washington, in turn, must judge whether Iranian commitments can be verified and enforced.

Personal relationships and rapid exchanges, hallmarks of Trump’s approach, may help overcome deadlock at critical moments. His administration has often sought leverage through military pressure, economic incentives and direct engagement with powerful regional leaders. Supporters argue that this method can produce movement when conventional diplomatic processes become stagnant.

The Foreign Affairs critique does not suggest that limited bargains are inherently harmful. Instead, it says they become unstable when they are not embedded in a broader strategy. A cease-fire needs monitoring. Economic concessions need conditions and verification. Regional powers need consultation. Negotiators need a process for resolving violations without immediately returning to war.

The analysis draws a broader lesson from other Trump-era initiatives. Agreements built around immediate exchanges may deliver short-term gains to participating governments while leaving underlying disputes unresolved. In the Middle East, where territorial, ideological and security conflicts overlap, postponed questions frequently return under more dangerous conditions.

For the United States, failure would carry costs beyond Iran. Another collapse could undermine confidence in Washington’s ability to broker agreements, encourage regional governments to seek additional security partners and make future U.S. assurances less persuasive. It could also require further military deployments and expenditures at a time when American planners are balancing commitments in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s expected visit to Washington adds another layer to the diplomatic moment. Israel has supported intense pressure on Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, while the United States has an immediate interest in preventing renewed attacks and restoring secure navigation. Differences over the acceptable scope or duration of an Iran arrangement could complicate efforts to convert the current pause into a stable framework.

The next stage will show whether the Trump administration is seeking another temporary exchange or a more durable negotiating architecture. A sustainable process would likely require mediators, written commitments, verification arrangements, crisis communications and coordinated engagement with regional governments whose security could be affected by any agreement.

Sunday’s continued pause is therefore significant but limited. It has created time for diplomacy and reduced the immediate threat to U.S. personnel, regional civilians and commercial traffic. It has not resolved the competing demands that repeatedly brought the United States and Iran back to confrontation.

The Foreign Affairs assessment is ultimately a warning against confusing an interruption of violence with peace. Trump’s transactional methods may be capable of producing an off-ramp from the current round of attacks. Whether they can create lasting stability will depend on what follows: sustained negotiations, credible commitments and political compromises that no short-term bargain can avoid.