After a two-hour-long meeting in the White House Situation Room with top American foreign policy, military, and national security officials, last Friday, President Donald Trump rejected the latest Iranian proposal for a Memorandum of Understanding that would lead to 60 days of negotiations to end Iran’s current conflict with the U.S. and Israel and to address Trump’s demands that Iran end its nuclear weapons program.

According to officials from Persian Gulf states who were briefed by the White House on the current state of the negotiations, Trump sent that proposal back to Iran with no substantive new proposals, but it did have tough language demanding stronger assurances of the unrestricted re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz to all tanker traffic, more detailed upfront Iranian concessions on its nuclear weapons program, and a rejection of Iran’s demands for immediate sanctions relief, and the release of billions of dollars of Iranian funds that have been frozen in foreign banks due to U.S. Treasury-enforced financial sanctions on Iran.

That rejection was consistent with Trump’s previous public declarations ridiculing President Barack Obama’s practice of sending “pallets of cash” worth a total of $1.7 billion to Iran. Those were de facto ransom payments for the release of American citizens with dual nationalities whom Iran had arrested and convicted on bogus national security or espionage charges. These Americans were then held in prisons to enable Iran to practice what has become known as “hostage diplomacy” against the United States.

Trump also reiterated in a Truth Social post over the weekend his insistence that the U.S. will seize and destroy Iran’s entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium, despite Iran’s consistent refusal to discuss any detailed restrictions on its nuclear program until after the Memorandum of Understanding has been signed and the new 60-day cease-fire is in place.

Peace Talks With Iran Impacted by Increased Fighting in Lebanon

Earlier Monday, Trump told NBC News that he was not upset by reports from the state-controlled Tansim Iranian news agency that Iran had suspended its negotiations with the U.S. to protest the expanded scale of Israeli military attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the IDF’s capture of the ancient Beaufort Castle located on high ground overlooking most of northern Israel. The Tansim report also said that members of Iran’s “Axis of Evil,” presumably a reference to the Houthis in Yemen, were prepared to “activate other fronts” by imposing another blockade on all shipping traversing the international waters of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, leading to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

Trump refuted the Tansim news report by declaring on his Truth Social account Monday that “[peace] talks are continuing, at a rapid pace, with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Trump has also reportedly grown frustrated by the length of time it takes for Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has been living in hiding since the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran started on February 28, to respond to Trump’s proposals through the Pakistani mediators of the current round of indirect peace talks. However, the president has publicly insisted that he is in “no rush” to reach an agreement with Iran, and that he is willing to let the process take as long as necessary to make sure that the terms of the final deal are “right.”

In a weekend broadcast interview with his daughter-in-law turned news media personality, Lara Trump, the president confirmed his previous statements that the deal with Iran is “largely finalized,” and that he preferred to make peace with Iran rather than going to war once more against the Islamic regime because that would enable the opening of the Strait of Hormuz immediately, as long as Trump was satisfied that the deal will really end Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Trump Promises to Make a Good Deal for the U.S. With Iran

Late Sunday night, Trump responded to the media reports about his demands that Iran provide firmer commitments in the Memorandum of Understanding by issuing a statement on his Truth Social account clarifying, in general terms, the current state and outlook for the negotiations with Iran. Trump noted, “Iran really wants to make a deal, and it will be a good one for the U.S.A. and those that are with us.”

However, Trump complained that when those “Dumcrats [a pun on Democrats]” and “unpatriotic Republicans,” whom he denigrated as “‘political hacks’. . . keep negatively ‘chirping’. . . over and over again, that I should move faster, or move slower, or go to war, or not go to war. . . [they make it] much tougher for me to properly do my job and negotiate.” Relying upon his confidence in his own negotiating skills, Trump ended his Truth Social post by urging those who are concerned about the outcome of the current U.S. talks with Iran to “Just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end. It always does!”

In response, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Sunday that no agreement will be approved with the United States until Tehran’s “rights” are secured. “The soldiers of the diplomatic battlefield have no trust in the words and promises of the enemy. What matters to us is tangible achievements that we must obtain, in exchange for which we will fulfil our commitments,” Ghalibaf said, according to Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Conflict Spikes Across the Persian Gulf Region

There was also a significant spike in the level of conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces over the weekend, further reducing the effectiveness of the ceasefire that has been nominally in force between the U.S. and Iran since April 8. According to a statement issued by the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) Sunday night, the exchange of attacks was initiated by “aggressive Iranian actions that included the shootdown of a U.S. MQ-1 drone that was operating over international waters.”

The CENTCOM statement added that, “U.S. fighter aircraft swiftly responded by eliminating Iranian air defenses, a ground control station, and two one-way attack drones that posed clear threats to ships transiting regional waters.” The Pentagon also described the attack on the Iranian targets as “purely defensive,” and therefore claimed that it did not violate the terms of the current U.S. ceasefire agreement with Iran.

Meanwhile, several Iranian state-run news outlets carried a claim by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that it struck the air base from which the U.S. launched an air strike on a telecommunications tower on Iran’s Sirik Island in the Persian Gulf. This was consistent with CENTCOM’s report about the attack by U.S. fighters on Iran’s air defenses.

A second Central Command report issued Monday morning said that its forces had “successfully intercepted two Iranian ballistic missiles targeting American forces stationed at the Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait.

“These missiles were immediately defeated, and no American personnel were harmed,” the CENTCOM report added, although CNN reported that some of the Kuwaiti base’s personnel were injured by falling debris from the missile interceptions.

There was also an earlier Iranian ballistic missile attack on a Kuwaiti air base last week in which four American service members and three private contractors suffered minor injuries. Fortunately, according to a CBS News report, all seven of them were able to return to their normal duties within 24 hours.

CENTCOM also reported Saturday that its forces had opened fire upon and disabled the cargo vessel M/V Lian Star, which was flying the flag of Gambia as it attempted to run the American blockade of Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. An American warplane fired a Hellfire air-to-ground missile, which destroyed the vessel’s engine room after it ignored more than 20 warnings to turn back. It was the fifth vessel to have been disabled by the U.S. military enforcing the blockade, in addition to 121 other vessels that have been peacefully “redirected” by the U.S. military since President Trump imposed the naval blockade on Iranian ports on April 13.

After the vessel was disabled, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth emphasized that the U.S. blockade on all shipping to or from Iran’s Persian Gulf ports will continue to be strictly enforced until a peace agreement with Iran is finalized.

Centcom Helped 70 Ships Run Iran’s Blockade

However, according to a CBS News report on Monday, for the past three weeks, CENTCOM has been quietly assisting 70 commercial ships to successfully run the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which is being enforced by small gunboats belonging to the IRGC, by showing them a channel through the Strait that is much further than usual from the coast of Iran.

On the other hand, the IRGC released a statement Monday saying that over the previous 24 hours, it had supervised the transit of 15 vessels, 4 of them oil tankers, through the Strait after charging them each a toll, despite the fact that the Strait has long been considered to be international waters which are open to free passage by vessels of all nations. The IRGC statement also included a warning that any vessels transiting the Strait in “cooperation with hostile extra-regional forces” [clearly meaning CENTCOM] will be seen as “an imminent security threat and will be dealt with accordingly.”

The IRGC threat to attack any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz without paying a toll to Iran is not an idle bluff. According to the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations Center (UKMTO), run by the British Royal Navy, there have been 44 confirmed attacks on commercial ships operating in Middle East waters since the war with Iran began on February 28. The latest incident took place on Monday off the coast of Iraq, when the Panama-flagged containership, MSC Sariska V, reported a “large explosion following a hit from an unknown projectile on the starboard side,” which created a hole in the side of the vessel above the waterline.

Economic Impact of the War Over Middle East Oil

Meanwhile, the Pentagon estimated last month that the American blockade was costing Iran more than $400 million a day in lost oil export revenue, and that Iran’s oil storage tanks at its main export terminal on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf were filled to capacity, forcing Iran to start shutting down production at its oil wells.

The imposition of the U.S. and Iranian blockades of the Persian Gulf caused prices for crude oil on global markets to spike by about 50% to more than $100 a barrel. That led in turn to an increase in the nationwide average cost of gas at the pump to more than $4.50 a gallon, causing financial hardship for tens of millions of American working-class and middle-income households. However, as prospects for a peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran seemed to improve over the past week, the benchmark price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell briefly below $90 a barrel while gas prices at the pump across America slowly dropped back down to $4.35 a gallon.

American Oil Is Replacing Blocked Persian Gulf Shipments

Trump’s former National Economic Council Director, Kevin Hassett, predicted in a Fox News interview Sunday that crude oil and gasoline prices will continue to fall in the coming days as more tanker ships, now carrying American-produced crude oil, begin reaching the oil refineries in East Asia, which were forced to shut down due to the cutoff in their usual oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Once these refineries resume production, he said confidently, the current global shortages of gasoline and jet fuel that have been driving the sharp increase in energy costs and the price of gas at the pump will be quickly ended, and he predicted that fuel supplies and energy prices will then return to normal levels within two months.

In a separate interview with ABC News Sunday, Hassett also downplayed the concerns expressed last week by ExxonMobil Senior Vice President Neil Chapman that the continued drawdown of about 9 million barrels of oil per week will soon exhaust America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), potentially resulting in a further increase in the cost of crude oil to $160 a barrel. Hassett said in response to that dire prediction that both the federal government and private American companies are still holding billions of barrels of oil in reserve, which are available to be released to keep energy prices from increasing much further.

Hassett also responded to a recent Gallup poll that found that only 16% of Americans currently rate the Trump economy as excellent or good. He argued that those poll numbers do not reflect the fact that recent gains in real wages and the stock prices have more than offset the current temporary spike in the price of gas at the pump, and other examples of continued inflation.

“If [Americans] look at their wallets and look at how much money they have after the increase in prices, they’re going to find that they have a lot more money [to spend],” Hasset said.

Trump Under Pressure While Iran’s Leaders Are Emboldened

Nevertheless, President Trump remains under strong diplomatic pressure from America’s Persian Gulf allies to reopen the Strait to their energy exports as soon as possible. He is also under intense political pressure at home from Republican candidates running in the upcoming November midterm elections to bring prices at the pump back down to about $3.15 a gallon, where they were a year ago, before the U.S. and Israel jointly attacked Iran for the first time.

It appears that Iran’s new hardline leaders have been emboldened by their success, so far, in closing the Strait of Hormuz, and their ability to withstand President Trump’s efforts to further damage Iran’s economy by imposing a naval blockade on its oil exports.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has admitted that he has little influence over President Trump’s decision on whether or not to agree to the Memo of Understanding, which would provide a financial lifeline for the current Islamic regime by loosening sanctions on its oil exports and unfreezing Iran’s funds sitting in foreign banks, in return for the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and negotiations over the restrictions that Trump is demanding on Iran’s nuclear program.

However, Netanyahu has not yet said or implied that Trump has given him any guarantee that the agreement the U.S. is now trying to negotiate with Iran will address Israel’s other top two security demands, which are the imposition of restrictions on the size and range of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, and the end to Iran’s practice of arming, directing, and supporting its terrorist proxies which have been attacking Israel, including, in particular, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Complicating Netanyahu’s Domestic Political Problems

This has become a major problem for Netanyahu’s bid for re-election as prime minister. As Israel prepares for the next Knesset election, which, by law, must be held no later than October 27, Netanyahu has come under withering attack by the leaders of Israel’s opposition parties. In addition to the lingering security concerns about Iran, as well as Netanyahu’s near-total subservience to President Trump. Israeli opposition leaders will also try to hold the prime minister and his government responsible for the grave intelligence failures that led to Hamas’ devastating October 7 attack, and the still unfinished war to eliminate Hamas control over Gaza, even though Trump’s ceasefire did eventually secure the return of all of the hostages, alive and dead, that Hamas captured and brought to Gaza that day.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) carried out dozens of air strikes against Iran beginning in the early days of the war and continuing through the day after the April ceasefire was declared, suggesting a much deeper UAE involvement in the 40-day air campaign led by the U.S. and Israel than had previously been suspected.

How the UAE Separated Itself From Its Gulf Neighbors

The newly revealed extent of the strikes is further evidence of the UAE’s growing willingness to use force in retaliation for Iran’s numerous attacks on its strategic interests, including its oil and natural gas infrastructure, as well as high-profile luxury real estate and tourist attractions. That has set the UAE apart from some of its Gulf region neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, which has taken a far more cautious approach in response to the attack upon them by Iran.

The UAE’s counterattacks on Iran were conducted by its modern air force, equipped with 80 of the most advanced model of America’s F-16 versatile warplanes and an equal number of French Mirage jet fighters. The U.S. and Israel cooperated by providing the UAE with intelligence information on strategic targets in Iran, such as the islands of Qeshm and Abu Musa in the Strait of Hormuz; the naval port at Bandar Abbas; the oil refinery on Lavan island in the Persian Gulf; and the Asaluyeh petrochemical complex. The Asaluyeh air strike, which was carried out in cooperation with Israel, was so damaging that it prompted President Trump to request an end to further attacks on Iran’s energy facilities to avoid disturbing the current negotiations with Iran for a new ceasefire.

The Persian Gulf countries told President Trump before the war that they wouldn’t let their airspace or military bases be used for the planned joint U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, hoping that would enable them to stay clear of the fighting. However, Iran responded to the devastating initial round of U.S. and Israeli air strikes on February 28 by launching hundreds of missiles and drone attacks against the population centers, energy infrastructure, and airports in the Gulf states to raise the economic and political costs of the conflict to the rest of the region. At that time, some of the Gulf countries quietly reversed their policies and opened their airspace and bases to the U.S. warplanes attacking Iran.

Iran Launched More Attacks on the UAE Than Israel

The UAE suffered the brunt of Iran’s attacks with more than 2,800 missiles and drones, far more than Iran fired at any other country in the region, including Israel. However, while Saudi Arabia, which suffered far fewer and less damaging Iranian attacks from Iran, did publicly condemn the Tehran regime for attacking all of the other Gulf states, it took a much less confrontational approach to Iran than the UAE did.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (widely known as MBS), also worked behind the scenes to try to resolve the conflict through diplomacy. He also deeply frustrated UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed by refusing to participate in the UAE’s ambitious plans for coordinated multinational counterattacks against Iran.

However, the UAE did coordinate its ongoing counterattacks against Iran with Israel, which responded by loaning the UAE one of its renowned Iron Dome anti-missile batteries, complete with dozens of IDF personnel trained in its use. That battery then defended UAE targets from ongoing attacks by successfully intercepting dozens of Iran’s short-range missiles.

In addition, several top Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Barnea, who was largely responsible for the remarkable recent accomplishments of Israel’s legendary Mossad spy agency, the head of the Shin Bet, and the IDF’s chief of staff, all secretly visited the UAE to coordinate with the war against Iran. That also vastly strengthened and added an element of military cooperation to the economic and diplomatic ties that have existed between the UAE and Israel since the 2020 signing of the Abraham Accords between them. Israeli officials have also been encouraged to hope that the current high level of military cooperation with the UAE against Iran will evolve into a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries.

That further exacerbated the pre-existing divisions between the Saudis and the UAE, which were already on opposite sides of ongoing civil wars in Sudan and Yemen. In early April, Saudi Arabia reportedly complained to the U.S. that the UAE’s counterattacks were raising the risk that all of the region’s energy facilities could be targeted by Iran, further rocking global energy markets. The Saudis were also said to have urged the U.S. to pressure the UAE’s leaders to stop their retaliatory attacks on Iran and join the diplomatic efforts to reach a negotiated end to the conflict.

UAE Leaders Abandon OPEC and Call for Closer Ties With Israel

The UAE responded to the Saudi complaint with an act of defiance by announcing in April that it was pulling out of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. The UAE had initially denied Iran’s accusations that it had joined the U.S. and Israeli air strikes. But after the rift opened up with the Saudis, UAE leaders announced their intentions to strengthen their country’s growing security ties with both the U.S. and Israel.

The UAE also backed, with the support of its Persian Gulf neighbor, Bahrain, a draft United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized the use of military force, if necessary, to “repress, neutralize and deter attempts [by Iran] to close, obstruct or otherwise interfere” with free passage by all vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition to its military counterattacks, the UAE acted in other ways against Iran’s financial interests. It closed the Iranian-affiliated schools and clubs in Dubai, the UAE’s largest city. It denied applications for tourist visas and transit rights from Iranian citizens, and it no longer provided Iran with a lifeline to help it fight the crippling economic sanctions applied against it by Trump.

Iran Escalates Its Attacks on the UAE

The UAE’s aggressive military response to Iran’s attacks upon it led to an escalation by Iran in its selection of targets in the UAE. First on March 14, and then on May 4, three weeks after President Trump announced the blockade on all shipping going to or from Iran’s Persian Gulf ports, Iran staged major drone and missile attacks on the UAE’s oil port at Fujairah. That facility is particularly significant because it is located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Oman, at the end of an oil pipeline stretching across the UAE, which bypasses the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Also on May 4, the leaders of Iran’s hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) dared to publish maps extending the control of its navy, made up of small, fast gunboats, over the UAE’s Gulf of Oman coastline, including its crucial oil terminal at Fujairah.

On May 18, six drones were launched by one of the Iranian-supported Shiite militias in Iraq that have been firing drones and missiles at U.S. troops stationed at bases across the region, at the UAE’s nuclear power plant in Abu Dhabi. Two out of the three drones that eventually entered UAE airspace were shot down, while the third drone hit and damaged an electrical generator just outside the perimeter of the reactor complex.

Fortunately, the drone attack did not result in the release of radiation, but the leader of the U.N.’s nuclear monitor, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed grave concern, condemning Iran’s attack targeting a civilian nuclear site, which could have had catastrophic results.

However, that attack and others on the UAE’s critical energy facilities apparently convinced the Emirati president to adopt a less aggressive posture by joining with other Gulf region leaders in a conference call to President Trump, urging him to seek once again a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iran.

Gingrich Praises Trump’s Leadership

Meanwhile, former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued his own analysis of the current strategic position of the U.S. in its conflict with Iran, and stated that after spending a week reviewing the war, “I am now convinced President Trump is on the edge of an historic victory.”

Gingrich also said that the key to gaining a proper understanding of the situation requires review of “President Trump’s decisions and maneuvers not from the standpoint of American unilateralism but from the standpoint of the leader of a remarkable historic coalition, the largest coalition ever put together in the modern Middle East. . .

“A great deal of President Trump’s maneuvers against Iran make sense once he is seen as a coalition leader and not just as a unilateral American President.”

Gingrich then explains that while “everyone understands that Israel is an important ally, what is [too] little discussed is the depth of support from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region.

Trump Is Building a Large Anti-Iran Coalition

He suggests that despite their initial opposition to Trump’s decision to attack Iran, “slowly, gradually, timidly, our European allies are lining up to help with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.”

Gingrich notes that, “It has to be sobering for the Iranian dictatorship to realize that it does not have a single ally willing to challenge the American naval blockade.”

Gingrich, a former college professor of American history, then compared the current military problem confronting Trump of winning the battle against Iran to clear the Strait of Hormuz to “the shocking and shattering level of force President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger used against Hanoi and Haiphong in [December] 1972 (which both leaders believed convinced the North Vietnamese to agree to a truce and the freeing of American POWs).”

However, Gingrich also observes that using that level of U.S. military force against Iran would “shatter the coalition because our Arab allies are convinced Iran could still do enormous damage to their oil fields and infrastructure.”

Gingrich Argues That Coalitions Are Slower but More Powerful

Gingrich then explains why Trump has adopted his current strategy: While “coalitions are inherently slower than unilateral [military] campaigns. . . coalitions ultimately bring vastly more power to the fight.”

While Gingrich admits that, “I am as frustrated as everyone else by the pace of talking with the [Iranian] dictatorship. But having reviewed the correlation of forces and the options available to the [U.S.] coalition on one side and the Iranian religiously motivated dictatorship on the other, I am prepared to assert that President Trump… is within reach of an enormous historic victory.

“And if the Iranian dictatorship ultimately proves it is hopelessly committed to a suicidal position, there will be plenty of time for a [military] campaign of enormous power and effectiveness.

“Either way,” Gingrich concludes optimistically, “we are on the edge of an astonishing victory for our values and for a safer Middle East.

Pros and Cons for a Quick Deal With Iran

On the other hand, Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russel Mead has a much more pessimistic outlook on the prospects for both sides reaching a mutually acceptable negotiated solution to the conflict. Mead notes that the hardline new leaders of Iran and President Trump each have compelling domestic political reasons for wanting to end the conflict as soon as possible.

Obviously, Trump needs Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz to end in time to provide substantial economic relief to the tens of millions of American car-owning households that can’t afford to continue paying $4.50 per gallon for gas at the pump, well before November’s midterm elections. Meanwhile, Iran’s new hardline leaders also need relief from Trump’s economic sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy, before the suffering it is inflicting on Iran’s 90 million people finally leads to an explosion, overcoming their fear of the violent and brutal tactics the regime is using to repress any hint of opposition or challenge to their religious authority and governmental legitimacy.

Fresh Water May Be More Important to the Middle East Than Oil

Mead believes that the largest threat to the coalition that Gingrich is talking about between Trump and the leaders of Iran’s neighboring Persian Gulf states is not the vulnerability of their oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, but rather the danger that Iran will attack their desalination plants. For example, Mead writes that “Saudi Arabia’s cities rely heavily on massive desalination complexes. The capital, Riyadh, is particularly exposed, as most of its water comes through pipelines from large desalination plants on the Gulf. If those facilities were taken out of commission, much of Riyadh’s population would likely have to be evacuated within days.”

Furthermore, even though attacking the desalination plants providing drinking water to civilian populations is considered a war crime, the current hardline leaders of Iran did not hesitate to carry out attacks on desalination plants in Kuwait and Bahrain. As a result, Mead suggests that the “threat to Gulf desalination facilities. . . may loom larger. . . than Iran’s threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Mead therefore concludes that, “Unless the U.S. [can]. . . find an effective deterrent to Iranian attacks on vital infrastructure, the choice may come down to providing a credible nuclear shield [from Iran] for our Gulf allies or abandoning them to the tender mercies of the Islamic Republic.”

The Risks of Taking the Easy Way Out

New York Times commentator Bret Stephens explains that the near-term political and economic advantages from agreeing to a quick, but imperfect deal with Iran may seem preferable to the taking the political risks of dragging out the negotiations with Iran while Americans are still suffering from inflated energy prices, or the risk of leading the U.S. back into a war, and failing once again to force the Islamic regime’s stubbornly resilient leaders into submission to his demands. But Stephens also points out the three main risks to the United States of taking the easy way out by making an agreement with the utterly unscrupulous, dishonest, and ruthless Islamic regime.

First, Stephens cites the dangers of permitting the Iranian “regime to emerge from the war as the perceived victor.” America’s global competitors, such as China, and its allies, such as the Saudis, who have long relied upon the American nuclear umbrella for their protection, will take note of its failure to stand up to its enemies and stand by its friends. It will also further embolden the new leaders of the Iranian regime to believe that they can make any further demands they want from their Persian Gulf neighbors and the many countries around the world, dependent on a continuing flow of Persian Gulf oil for the energy needed to run their economies, simply by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz again. Furthermore, Stephens notes, that any deal that the Islamic regime might make with Trump now “to end the current blockade [of the Persian Gulf] is merely an enticement for the next blockade and the one after that.”

Why Iran Has Never Won A War Or Lost A Negotiation

Second, Stephens warns that the familiar adage “that the Iranian regime has never won a war or lost a negotiation happens to be true. That’s not just because the regime has a genius for bargaining, though it does. It has an equal genius for bending and breaking rules and agreements whenever it suits its needs,” as it proved when it found ways around all of its legally binding obligations and the restrictions on its nuclear weapons program in President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Stephens also notes that the Iranian regime is expert at the diplomatic game of “play[ing] for time with a carefully balanced set of tantalizing promises and extraneous demands. . . they’ll insist upon in exchange for easily reversible concessions.”

Third and last, Stephens warns that “Trump will get no political relief in the midterms if his signature presidential act for 2026 is a failed war.”

Economic Pain in Pursuit of Strategic Futility Is a Political Blunder

However, the New York Times columnist also points out that while voters may complain bitterly about being forced to pay so much more for gas at the pump, “many are also willing to swallow the cost for a worthy objective — such as removing a potent and rising menace to America’s security and our vital interests. But economic pain in pursuit of strategic futility is an unforgivable political blunder.”

Stephens concludes that Trump is now facing a grim choice in dealing with Iran going forward. He writes, “Trump need not be defeated in this war, but he’s close. Should he lose it, what remains of his presidency will go down with it.”

Similarly, Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an Israeli think tank, warns that “any agreement [Trump agrees to] that leaves the [current] regime intact is likely to be treated by [Iran’s leaders] as a temporary tactical pause rather than a final settlement.”

Diker and many others, note that the Islamic regime has been successful in its diplomatic encounters with the West in the past because it “views negotiations not as a path to peace but as a continuation of conflict through [other] means.”

Diker’s description of Iran’s strategic mindset is a clever reversal of an insight into the nature of conflicts between nations made famous by Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th-century Prussian military strategist who defined war as “the continuation of politics by other means.”

The Islamic regime’s attitudes have been shaped by Shiite Islamic traditions, which celebrate the “concepts of endurance, sacrifice and martyrdom.” Also, the importance that Iran’s culture assigns to continued resistance and the ability to tolerate hardships for the sake of achieving its goals makes Iran’s leadership much more stubborn and less willing to admit defeat than that of any secular nation-state.

Iran Never Considers Any Agreement Final

As a result, Diker suggests that no Iranian agreement with an adversary is ever considered final. “Temporary truces are. . . used to buy time, regroup, and strengthen before resuming confrontation.”

Furthermore, the deliberately overlapping of institutional authority in Iran’s hybrid parliamentary/theocratic government makes it easier for its leaders to “obstruct or quietly reverse concessions [to their adversaries] even after agreements are signed.”

Diker refers to the observation by British Middle East analyst Andrew Fox that while the leaders of most Western nations use material metrics, such as territory won or lost, casualties, and the level of economic damage, to determine whether a war has been won or lost, Iran’s Islamic leaders are much more interested in attaining a spiritual victory over their enemies, which is enhanced rather diminished by any material losses that are suffered in the process.

Why Pressure Hardens Iran’s Resistance Rather Than Breaking It

As Diker observes, “This is why pressure so often hardens the regime rather than breaking it. . .

“Tehran does not define victory as Washington does. Its calculation is narrower and far more durable: Did the regime survive? Did resistance continue? If the answer is yes, the leadership can frame even catastrophic material losses… as a spiritual triumph.”

That is why President Trump may be technically correct when he claims that militarily, Iran has already been soundly defeated, and that the decapitation of Iran’s military and political leadership, combined with the assassination of its Supreme Leader on the first day of the war, means that the goal of regime change is already a reality. But because the Islamic regime has entirely different criteria for judging victory and defeat, the conflict is destined to go on, with no end yet in sight.