Categories Finance

Trump’s Threats and False Negotiations Amid Iran War: Israel Pushes for Escalation as US Withdraws

  • 2026年8月3日
  • Estimated read time 19 min read
  • 0 comments

Introduction: The ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated recently, illustrating the unpredictable nature of international relations. Former President Trump’s attempts to navigate this fraught atmosphere reveal both the complexities of foreign policy and the profound consequences of military threats. This article takes a close look at the latest developments, reactions, and implications in this evolving scenario.

This past weekend, Trump once again displayed his characteristic unpredictability by calling off what was rumored to be a significant military strike on Iran just moments before it was set to occur. It appears that his decision-making was swayed by the last person who spoke to him, raising concerns about his impulse-driven approach to foreign policy. Following meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and influential hawks at Senator Lindsey Graham’s funeral, Trump issued yet another series of dire threats aimed at Iran. In response, Iran not only made clear its capacity to retaliate against U.S. and Israeli interests but also publicly shared a list of critical targets along with reasons why they were significant.1 To ensure that this message reached key players, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif engaged in discussions with leaders from Gulf States. Reports suggest that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) intervened by calling Trump to urge him to reconsider his military plans, while the UAE continued advocating for action against Iran.

Amid these developments, Trump has maintained the misleading narrative that Iran is desperate for a deal. While headlines are powerful tools that shape reader perceptions, they often fail to convey the nuanced reality of the situation:

Unlike the suggested headlines, reports indicate that Iran has not agreed to any negotiations. For a clearer picture, one must turn to sources like Al Jazeera:

Insights from its live coverage include:

Summary of remarks from Iranian FM Spokesman Baghaei:

  • Currently, there are no discussions ongoing with the United States, and Iran has no plans to send or host delegations.
  • Negotiations are indeed proceeding with Oman regarding a temporary passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
  • However, reaching an agreement with Oman isn’t enough to reopen the strait; the situation will remain static if U.S. “aggression” persists.
  • China has expressed concern over the increasing conflict and is working towards de-escalation.
  • There is no new mediator involved in negotiations with the U.S.; the roles remain with Pakistan and Qatar.
  • The U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran is viewed not as a war against a single nation but against the entire region.
  • The situation in Yemen should not be associated with the war on Iran; doing so detracts from accountability.

From The Financial Times:

The subhead here misrepresents the reality. While Iran has indicated that it is nearing an understanding with Oman regarding the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, this does not suggest that the passage will be reopening shortly. A visit to Press TV shows:

Headlines to note:

Iran-Oman shipping agreement does not grant permission for Hormuz reopening: Baghaei

Claims of Iran consenting to reopen the Hormuz Strait are unfounded.

From a high-level perspective:

The Wall Street Journal, albeit cautiously, expresses some skepticism regarding the situation in its lead article, opting for an unflattering image of Trump:

From the body of the article:

After days of threats to launch a new offensive against Iran, President Trump is once again attempting to achieve through diplomacy what he has failed to accomplish through war.

The crucial question remains whether Trump’s Gulf partners can manage to make any significant progress in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and set the stage for future nuclear talks….

However, if negotiations falter as they have in the past, Trump may revert to his previous pattern of renewing military threats shortly after backing away from them.

“He is trying to explore a diplomatic resolution to avoid escalating military conflict. Yet, there seems to be no clear pathway, either diplomatically or militarily, for Trump to find a way to declare victory,” said Vali Nasr, an expert on Iran at Johns Hopkins University.

Policy Tensor on Twitter articulates the skepticism more bluntly:

The extreme mendacity and total lack of credibility of the U.S. administration significantly hampers both coercive diplomacy and the search for an off-ramp.

Coercive measures are ineffective because Iran has learned to disregard U.S. threats. Finding a way out has become more challenging, given that Iran has lost trust in U.S. promises.

Despite these claims, I would argue that a military solution for Iran remains feasible—it is compelling the U.S. to withdraw from the region. The U.S. is running low on munitions and cannot expect to replenish its supplies quickly enough to alter the prevailing trend. Should the U.S. initiate a significant and brutal attack, Iran would have the capability to inflict severe damage on the global economy.

Regarding the Journal’s growing skepticism, it may be a sign that Iran is no longer willing to engage peacefully when Trump dusts off his old diplomatic playbook. According to NO1’s latest update:

Tankers still targeted in the “deal” corridor. UKMTO/Ambrey documented an explosion approximately 20 nautical miles northeast of Khasab, Oman (MoloWarMonitor, ZH); the VELOS AMBER traveled through the U.S.-backed corridor with heavy air support, only to be fired upon by at least one projectile (MenchOsint). This is not typical behavior for a party “begging for a ceasefire.”

Unfortunately, this “peace talks are back on” narrative continues to sway markets and perpetuate Trump’s grandiose vision of his influence on global events.

To gain perspective: Iran appears to be operating on the principle espoused by Theodore Roosevelt: “If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” However, the current energy and commodity crisis has not yet escalated enough to threaten Trump’s standing. Some reports suggest that Iran won’t engage in negotiations until oil prices hit $120 per barrel.

As explained by John Mearsheimer, Trump is resorting to tried-and-true tactics, hoping that by striking aggressively in various directions, he can buy time to influence outcomes to his advantage. But this scenario is unlikely to yield a favorable result; as we have consistently noted, time is not on Trump’s side:

The remainder of the tweet elaborates:

That would mean another 200 million barrels.

However, the release rate is currently throttled to 0.5-0.6 million barrels per day.

This volume isn’t sufficient to eliminate backwardation.

Most barrels previously available in the Middle East have already been released, leaving no immediate supply available for market saturation.

The clock is ticking.

Trump may believe he has more leeway than is apparent, particularly with the midterm elections looming, as he runs down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to around 70 million barrels and observes the impending diesel crisis. Alarm bells have been raised, yet analysts are suggesting timelines may still be optimistic. As mentioned on Twitter:

It’s getting worse. Diesel rationing is on the horizon.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan recently appeared on CNBC, using diplomatic language to convey a subtle concern, indicating that diesel production cannot meet demand.

A direct quote: “The price signals indicate that we are short in diesel and gasoline…”

My research indicates we can navigate through the gasoline shortage, but diesel shortages are poised to worsen. Initially, in the U.S., this will likely translate to elevated diesel prices (expected to reach $8 to $10 per gallon). However, if oil shipments from the Strait of Hormuz do not fully resume (a seemingly impossible feat), we will almost certainly face a “rationing” situation that will not be labeled as such.

This means scarcity, and allotted distributions for fuel suppliers, and there simply won’t be enough diesel to meet demand.

I shouldn’t have to explain how this will impact food prices, agriculture, construction, long-haul trucking, or the supply chains for essential parts—not to mention overall food inflation which would see significant spikes.

And this is the Shell CEO attempting to downplay the situation and maintain optimism. Imagine what discussions are like behind closed doors.

Anticipate a severe downturn.

Trump mistakenly believes he can bomb his way to triumph over Iran, falsely assuming control over the Strait of Hormuz through U.S. naval power—a belief that is, frankly, absurd.

The imminent diesel shortages represent only a fragment of a broader crisis: shortages span essential commodities like fertilizer, helium, sulfuric acid, polyethylene feedstock, etc. Failure to resolve this conflict while allowing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to resume will plunge our global economy into a multi-year Dark Age, leading not only to economic recession but a systemic collapse characterized by starvation, violence, population decline, and mass migration.

“Later this year” may feel distant to Trump.

Moreover, Trump has publicly expressed that his dominance is paramount, indifferent to the consequences of widespread destruction. He shows little inclination to soften his rhetoric or adjust policies to counteract his declining popularity. The evident choice to deplete the SPR to levels detrimental to U.S. security reflects a “Après moi, le déluge” mindset. There’s a credible risk he might allow U.S. munitions to drop to precarious levels in another doomed effort to reclaim his perceived authority unless military leaders refuse his commands.

Trump finds himself fundamentally ensnared—not solely due to Iran’s sustained grips on the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic blunders of his military operations, and the visible frailty of U.S. forces, but also because of his persona and the incompetence surrounding key posts in his administration.

In a recent conversation with Nima, Larry Wilkerson noted that he sees Trump as ensnared by several factors:

From an extensively edited machine transcript:

What I observe is a scenario where this specific president, due to his own choices, is entrapped by several factors from which he cannot escape. The first issue stems from the war he initiated. He’s trapped by many dynamics, not the least of which is our dwindling ammunition supplies …

The second issue involves the Strait’s ongoing strategic significance and the control that Iran exerts over it. In addition, he is burdened by challenges related to the nuclear program, which he himself instigated. The moment he exited the JCPOA, he fostered this conflict. He’s ensnared by both the Strait and the nuclear issue, both of which remain unchanged no matter how many bombs he might theoretically deploy.

Trump is more entangled than LBJ ever was… There are additional layers where he’s also trapped by his desire to reestablish a U.S. presence in Southwest Asia despite the fact that he is losing this conflict and being effectively expelled.

Moreover, he aims to achieve this through one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism: Saudi Arabia—sacrificing everything he is fighting for by potentially granting them a nuclear program.

His advancements are currently being obstructed by various factions, including the Houthis.

Furthermore, he faces the domestic trap posed by Bibi Netanyahu and the implications of Israel’s fate, which is inextricably linked to this scenario. Beyond that, he finds himself internationally ensnared, as any escalation must be handled very delicately.

The dangers of conflict could not be more evident. The ultimate fate of Israel hinges not on military might but on the prospect of true democracy.

Lastly, Trump is unique. He is not George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan. His political approach has chained him: a mindset of victory without concessions.

How can he claim victory in this situation? This requires a leader with the ability to act selflessly, unlike Trump, who is fixated on winning at all costs.

This mindset effectively leaves Trump unable to extricate himself from his own predicament.

Perhaps fate will intervene as it did with Lindsey Graham or the military may refuse Trump’s commands. Regardless of the scenario, something is bound to give. Trump will either continue to waver as the economy deteriorates, or he may ultimately launch a delayed, large-scale military offensive.

As many are aware, if Iran and the U.S. proceed to exchange more substantive messages, Iran will likely redefine its terms beyond what was previously established in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Iranian officials are likely to insist upon U.S. commitment to withdraw not only from Lebanon but also Gaza, alongside removal from bases in Gulf States. While accruing such agreements is on the verge of being a reality, we rely on reports from Financial Times, which illuminate Iran’s previous advancements against the U.S.:

Over the past fortnight, Iranian forces have taken a proactive stance, initiating attacks aimed at exhausting U.S. resources and compelling its Arab allies to acknowledge Iranian dominance over the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, Iran executed an unexpected assault on a U.S. military installation in Jordan, marking a departure from a previous lull in engagements. Iranian forces, along with their regional allies, have broadened the conflict, targeting vessels in the Red Sea and exploiting opportunities across Syria.

“Iran is preparing for a prolonged confrontation,” noted Nasr, highlighting that Tehran no longer sees negotiations as viable. “Their strategy is systematic; they aim to push U.S. forces far from Iran, out of the Gulf and beyond, confining them to Israel and Jordan.”

Iran has recently increased assaults against Kuwait and Bahrain, forcing the U.S. to redeploy its personnel, who were formerly stationed at bases vulnerable to attacks and are now repositioned to Israel and Jordan.

Public frustration is on the rise in Jordan, a consistent ally to the U.S., where activists and notable figures have petitioned for the U.S. military to withdraw.

This leads to a somewhat desperate conclusion:

However, not all is lost. “They are not invincible,” remarked Farzan Sabet of the Geneva Graduate Institute, predicting that Iran’s confidence will diminish as its dismal economic realities become starker. “A point may arise where their calculations have to change.”

Recent reports suggest that U.S. withdrawals from Iraq are ongoing:

We have previously explored how the U.S. and Qatar failed to release even $6 billion of Iranian assets that the Biden Administration had initially approved, reneging under the pretext of the October 7 deadline. Understandably, even Western analysts have realized, as Marandi declared, that Iran will insist on access to its frozen funds upfront.In a tweet from Brett Erickson:

It seems many overlook the significance of possible joint-control over the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, yet this is no longer Iran’s primary objective.

In realistic terms, it is highly improbable that Iran would agree to any future deal that doesn’t involve significant unfreezing of its assets without delay. Estimates suggest Iran has $100 billion to $120 billion in frozen assets globally.

Considering the extensive damages from bombings and the resultant blockades, Iran will want these funds to be released immediately and irrevocably.

In previous MOUs, Iran’s only substantial upfront concession was the oil sanctions waiver. As we observed, this arrangement was not durable, with Trump discarding it within two weeks into its authorized timeframe. Iran will not accept returning to a reversible state.

While the Strait of Hormuz remains a significant symbolic victory for Iran, the immediate goal will be the guaranteed unfreezing of assets—before sanctions are lifted.

Regrettably, there isn’t a scenario in which this transpires. Both Trump and Congress would choose to precipitate a global depression rather than endure such humiliation. Thus, the only avenue for resolution may involve a U.S. withdrawal, yet Israel will fiercely resist such a move.

Israel is reportedly furious at Trump’s last-minute cancellation:

According to Brandon Weichert, Israeli sources assert that Trump’s retreat is temporary, and that the U.S. and Israel will “return to action” shortly. Janta Ka has reported a new deployment of ten additional refueling tankers in the area.

It seems Israel remains unaware that their Dimona nuclear facility is now on Iran’s target list:

A recent post on Sonar21, authored by Karl Miller, offers an in-depth analysis of Iran’s potential retaliatory targets. He highlights refinements as vulnerable yet essential:

A concerted U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran could create substantial risks for retaliatory actions aimed first at Israel’s concentrated fuel systems, followed by wider vulnerabilities across Gulf Cooperation Council refining, LNG, power, and water infrastructures if these states are viewed as enabling the military campaign. The strategic danger lies not in single-target damage, but the potential cascading failures of tightly linked systems due to inadequate substitute supplies and logistics…

Israel’s domestic refining capacity is not geographically diversified. Haifa/Bazan and Ashdod bear almost the entire burden for diesel and jet fuel production. The broader Haifa complex meets approximately two-thirds of the middle-distillate baseline and around 70 percent of diesel. Ashdod represents the only substantial alternative should Haifa become inaccessible.

Essentially, Haifa/Bazan constitutes Israel’s crucial fuel-security vulnerability, as its operational strategy hinges on multiple interconnected support facilities. A disruption needn’t obliterate every crude or conversion unit to produce widespread shortages. Even minor failures in electrical systems, steam, hydrogen, internal transfers, controls, tankage, or product certification could simultaneously cripple several operational lines.

Previously, we discussed Iran’s evolving military doctrine, allowing for preemptive strikes to mitigate the current geopolitical impasse. This reality prompts official messaging changes:

Additional noteworthy items:

Despite this rhetoric, it’s challenging to take seriously, especially given the UK’s cooperation in facilitating U.S. military operations against Iran.

From Al Jazeera’s live feed:

IRGC claims interception of Reaper drone over the Strait of Hormuz

According to the IRGC-operated Sepah News, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has shot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Strait of Hormuz. The drone was targeted by a defense system stationed over this area. While the origin of the drone remains uncertain, it is primarily operated by the U.S. Air Force. More than 30 U.S. Reaper drones have been intercepted since the initiation of the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran on February 28.

Additional indicators of urgency include:

That wraps things up for today. More developments are expected soon!

Conclusion: The dynamics between the U.S. and Iran continue to unfold unpredictably, with both military and diplomatic measures contributing to a tense situation. As various stakeholders grapple with the implications of these interactions, it remains critical to monitor the evolving landscape. With both sides entrenched in their positions, the potential for serious consequences looms large, necessitating a careful examination of future strategies and actions.

1 In case you missed it:

2 I share Aurelian’s sentiments regarding the characterization of U.S.-Iran interactions as negotiations. They hardly even reach the standards for basic dialogue; exploratory exchanges facilitated by mediators often come misrepresented and do not constitute genuine negotiations.

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

The Capital Spectator: Investing, Asset Allocation, and Economic Insights

Oligarchs Prepare for Conflict Amidst the Ruins of Their Destroyed State

The Capital Spectator: Investing, Asset Allocation, and Economic Insights