Donald Trump often portrays himself as an unwavering tough leader who never relents, yet his actions do not always align with his proclamations. For instance, his insistence that Denmark cede Greenland and his threats to impose tariffs on trade partners highlight instances where he did not follow through. Moreover, he has made claims about Iran being desperate for a deal, suggesting that they were “begging” him to negotiate, despite lacking supporting evidence.
On Monday, Trump escalated his rhetoric, granting Iran until Tuesday at 8 PM ET to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if they did not comply. This public threat of mass destruction sent shockwaves across the U.S., prompting some Democratic leaders to declare that “Trump has lost his mind.” Over 70 Democratic lawmakers called for his impeachment, while even some politicians and media figures who typically support him condemned his remarks. Certain commentators reminded military personnel of their duty to disobey blatantly illegal orders, marking this moment as unprecedented in American political history.
Iranians, including critics of their own government, expressed disbelief. Thousands formed human chains around critical infrastructure such as bridges and power stations, signaling their resistance to potential attacks. A military leader referred to Trump as “delusional,” asserting that Iran would retaliate even more forcefully. The Iranian leadership subsequently announced a cessation of all direct diplomatic dialogue with the U.S., reinforcing their stance of refusing to submit.
This situation left Trump with two unfavorable options. The first would involve launching a military strike against Iran, a course of action that could exacerbate domestic political turmoil, potentially even prompting calls for his impeachment from some Republican lawmakers. Such a military response would also likely elicit widespread international condemnation, including from allies. An attack could destabilize the Persian Gulf, resulting in increased energy prices and a potential global recession. With his approval ratings already declining and midterm elections approaching in November, Trump faced the prospect of losing legislative control and facing intensified investigations into various scandals.
The other alternative was to order the U.S. Navy to secure the Strait, though he had previously downplayed its importance to an oil-rich nation like the U.S. However, maintaining open passage through the Strait would be complex and hazardous, requiring more than just naval vessels. Iran’s strategic position near the Strait, combined with its arsenal of mines and short-range missiles, could make the situation perilous for U.S. naval operations. Tehran could opt to target tankers selectively, creating a risky environment for shipping, particularly for those unwilling to pay transit fees, while the largest supertankers would face challenges with high insurance costs.
Iran had consistently rejected the notion of a ceasefire, demanding a permanent end to hostilities, compensation for damages, and assurances against aggression from both the U.S. and Israel. They also sought a complete lifting of economic sanctions and a fee for safe passage through the Strait, which would be split with Oman, to fund reconstruction efforts. Furthermore, Iran insisted on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region.
While Iran has now agreed to allow safe passage through the Strait for two weeks, it is expected to continue imposing tolls. Significant discrepancies persist between U.S. and Iranian positions, particularly regarding sanctions relief. Moreover, since abandoning negotiations in Geneva to initiate military action, Iran has not offered major concessions on nuclear enrichment or missile reductions, both of which are significant demands from Israel.
Should a ceasefire occur without a comprehensive agreement, the question remains: what comes next? Iran continues to control the Strait, maintains its defiance, and possesses the military capability to instigate a global economic downturn. Its demands are likely to remain unacceptable to Trump, and vice versa.
If a ceasefire is established without a substantial agreement, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could resume their military campaign. However, achieving “regime change” through aerial assaults alone is unlikely, and a ground invasion would likely lead to a protracted and bloody conflict. Despite being unable to match U.S. military strength, Iran has a significant number of active, reserve, and paramilitary forces, all of whom would be defending their homeland in a conflict that would take place within a geographically challenging terrain.
