The critics erupted again the moment President Trump ordered a naval blockade, cutting off oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz that Iran has been controlling access to. Brinkmanship, they said. Dangerous escalation. These are the same critics who condemned the war from day one. But here is the truth they keep avoiding: the United States, Europe, the Gulf states and Israel have all been in a shadow war for decades. Every administration before this one too often chose to manage the threat rather than resolve it. Sanctions here, a diplomatic communiqué there, a weak JCPOA that kicked the can down the road. The regime did not moderate. It never was going to.
The because of a trust deficit, a phrase analysts deploy to suggest the problem is one of communication rather than intention. Enemies do not trust each other. That is the definition of the situation, not an obstacle to overcome. The talks failed because Iran believes it is winning. Despite the extraordinary achievements of the United States and Israel, which significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program and dismantled key elements of its leadership and military infrastructure, the regime has not broken. You cannot fully defeat an enemy willing to burn the house down around itself.
Following those devastating strikes, one Iranian analyst, Nasser Torabi, declared on state television: “We have now entered a new stage in the history of Iran as an international superpower, and we will be recognized as a global superpower.” Iran came to those talks not to make peace but to press its advantage. It seized the Strait of Hormuz as its most powerful weapon, betting that cheap drones, proxy networks and control of 20 percent of the world’s oil supply gave it enough leverage to outlast a president it believes is watching the midterms. It rejected zero enrichment on Iranian soil and refused to relinquish control of the world’s most critical waterway. The two sides were not close.
President Trump did not arrive here without exhausting every alternative. A personal letter to the supreme leader. Four rounds of Oman-mediated talks. Back channels through Pakistan and Egypt. Extended deadlines. Muscat, Rome, Geneva, Islamabad. Iran made clear at every stage that it would not concede diplomatically what it believed could not be taken from it militarily. Diplomacy without leverage is a wish. President Trump applied both.
The blockade is the logical next step between failed talks and resumed strikes. Some say it will be difficult to sustain. That is an argument for execution, not retreat, because the alternative is worse. Some say Iran has asymmetric tools and the risks are real. True. Does that mean the on the planet, fighting alongside a stalwart ally in Israel, should stand down? Are we so weakened in our thinking that we cower from every hard option because hard options carry risk?
Europe deserves particular mention. have opposed escalation, declined to join the blockade and offered defensive escort missions instead. That protects individual ships. It leaves Iran in possession of the Hormuz card, free to play it again at will. Applying a bandage and squeezing saline at a wound that requires surgery does not make you a peacemaker. It makes you part of the problem.
This is a game of chicken and a test of endurance. Iran is betting on . They do not know the man I know. I worked alongside him for 23 years. He does not walk away from a mission he believes in because a poll moves, a journalist writes a hostile column or a handful of supposed MAGA influencers cry foul. He moves forward. To do what is right. To do what is necessary. To protect what is worth protecting.
The two issues that broke the talks in Islamabad are binary. Either Iran on its soil or it does not. Either the Strait is open and uncontrolled or it is not. One side will have to win.
My assessment is that it will be President Trump’s side. Not because the path is easy, and
