Iran negotiations falter.. Will Trump find himself between the siege of Hormuz and the option of escalation? | policy

Negotiations with Iran are faltering at a moment when US President Donald Trump does not have the luxury of wasting time, because the naval blockade needs additional weeks to turn into painful oil pressure on Tehran, even though every additional week also raises the cost of disruption to energy, navigation, and markets.

While the American President canceled his envoys’ trip to Islamabad, and then left the door ajar by talking about a possible phone call, he seemed to be moving between two clocks that were pressing him together: the clock of politics, which wants a quick breakthrough, and the clock of Hormuz, which makes the delay heavier day after day.

In this context, American readings paint a picture of a president who does not face Iranian intransigence onlyAnd also limited options.

The trip that didn’t happen

In a New York Times report, the cancellation of the American delegates’ trip to Islamabad appeared to be a clear sign that the negotiations are far from the “imminent breakthrough” image that Trump tried to market.

The newspaper pointed out that the US President stopped the travel of his senior aides before they set off, justifying this by saying that the Iranian offer was not at the required level, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi returned to Pakistan, in an opposite sign that suggests that Tehran still sees benefit in keeping the track on track, even without an imminent breakthrough.

The newspaper adds that the basic knots are still in place, from the fate of the highly enriched uranium stock, to the limits of the enrichment program itself, to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, as well as Iran’s refusal to resume negotiations as long as the US naval blockade of its ports remains in place.

Trump is trying to impose a fast negotiating pace on an opponent who uses a completely different logic want Washington is making an urgent breakthrough, while Tehran is betting on patience and patience

The New York Times does not limit itself to listing the points of disagreement, but rather goes deeper, to the difference in the logic of negotiation itself. It quotes Robert Malley, one of the architects of the 2015 agreement, that Trump wants urgent results and a quick, marketable formula, while the Iranian leadership deals with the logic of taking a long breath, wasting time, and clinging to details.

This difference is not only a matter of style, but rather the essence of the entire impasse, because the American President is trying to impose his rhythm on a long path, which the previous nuclear agreement did not resolve except after years of negotiation, long pages of technical annexes, and an endless series of delicate bargaining.

Thus, it seems that what Trump wants is a quick address, and Tehran sees it as a battle of patience with no room for haste.

The strait is on the table

The Wall Street Journal takes this picture a step further, as it believes that the deadlock in the talks leaves Trump with very uncomfortable options.

After canceling the Islamabad trip, he has – according to the newspaper – only three paths left before him: either escalating the conflict, accepting a deal lower than his announced conditions, or maintaining the naval blockade as a means of pressure in the hope that the Iranian position will soften.

But none of these paths seem to be without a price. Escalation could drag the United States into a deeper war than Trump originally wanted, and a weaker deal would appear to be a political retreat. Continuing the blockade while Hormuz remains paralyzed means prolonging the damage to the global economy.

The faltering talks leave Trump facing three uncomfortable paths: either a broader escalation, a weaker deal than he wanted, or a blockade that prolongs the Hormuz crisis and raises its cost on the global economy.

The Wall Street Journal explains that the dispute is no longer confined to the nuclear issue alone, but has turned into an interwoven network of nodes, as it stipulates Tehran EEnding the blockade on its ports before resuming any negotiations, and insisting that Hormuz not return to its “previous status,” while it wants Washington Transferring highly enriched uranium out of Iran, and ending Tehran’s ability to enrich locally, or at least freezing it for decades.

Even in a situation where there appears to be a narrow space for movement, i.e. the duration of the suspension of enrichment, the gap remains wide between an American request spanning twenty years and an Iranian willingness – according to the newspaper – to accept a suspension. restricted Shortest duration.

Hence, the negotiations do not falter because a date was cancelled, but rather because each file in them has become linked to another file, as the siege is linked to Hormuz, Hormuz to nuclear, and nuclear to post-war guarantees.

Nuclear node

As for Politico, it adds an element to the scene that is no less dangerous than the outstanding issues themselves, which is the element of time.

The site, in its talk about the decisive dates that may constitute the following weeks for Trump and the Republicans, indicates that the American blockade on Hormuz puts Iran before a practical deadline related to its ability to export oil.

If Tehran is unable to continue exporting within about an additional month, it may be forced to temporarily close some of its wells after the storage capacity is full, a decision that threatens the pressure within the fields and their productivity later.

But the site also conveys that reaching this moment requires “strict and sustained” enforcement of the blockade for at least another month, which means that Washington, in order to turn economic pressure into an actual effect, is required to maintain a costly and sensitive blockade for a longer period.

The American blockade on Hormuz has put the Iranians in front of a sensitive oil deadline, as Tehran may be forced to close some of its wells within about a month if the strict export ban continues and the storage capacity is filled.

However, at the same time, Politico reveals a more embarrassing paradox for the White House, which is that Iran, despite the escalation, has largely continued to export its oil during the past two months, especially to China, and even the Trump administration itself Excuse me This flow is relatively to alleviate the shortage that hits its allies.

Here, the time factor is no longer a purely American pressure tool, but rather turns into a clock that works in both directions. The more Washington tightens the blockade, the closer it comes to suffocating Iran with oil, but at the same time it comes closer to deepening imbalances in the market and raising the cost of the war on the allies and the international economy.

Thus, the question remains not only how patient Iran can be, but also how much can Washington bear the consequences of the pressure it itself is exerting?