When ordering the attack on Iran at the end of February, US President Donald Trump vowed to destroy key nuclear facilities and only stop in the face of Iranian "unconditional surrender."
The series of events over the weekend exposed the trap Trump set for himself by believing it would be possible, in one fell swoop, to cripple the Iranian nuclear program and also overthrow the Ayatollah regime.
After three months of war and two months of ceasefire that neither destroyed the Iranian nuclear program nor yielded the peace agreement that the American president imagined would come quickly, the resumption of attacks between Iran and Israel in recent days has made the scenario even more complex.
On one hand, it showed that Trump is no longer able to lead the process – since he was overtaken by Iran's attacks on Israel, in retaliation for an Israeli bombing in southern Lebanon, and by Israel 's response.
In a move bordering on humiliation, Trump went so far as to appeal to both sides to halt the missile exchange so as not to disrupt the peace negotiations between the US and Iran, which have been dragging on for weeks without any concrete sign of progress.
On the other hand, it caused the global financial market to rekindle fears of a conflict with no solution in the short term. Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, which was trading above US$98 a barrel at the start of Monday, June 8, fell to around US$95 in the mid-afternoon after Iran and Israel suspended hostilities – even so, still far from the US$72 a barrel before the war.
The breakdown of the truce initiated two months ago was a hard blow for Trump because it showed that Iran is in no hurry to reach an agreement with the US.
This became clear not only from the fact that the first attack of the weekend came from the Persian country, but also from the threats made by spokespeople for the Iranian regime should the Israeli bombings continue. These threats included taking the war to the Indian Ocean, including the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean.
The Bab al-Mandab Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, has served as a crucial escape valve for oil exporters. The flow of oil from Saudi Arabia increased considerably through its east-west pipeline after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, redirecting millions of barrels per day to the Red Sea.
The Red Sea route accounts for 15% of world maritime trade, and the Strait of Hormuz for about 20%. The complete and simultaneous closure of both waterways would exert enormous pressure on the Cape of Good Hope route, bypassing South Africa.
New trump card
Trump's pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend not to retaliate against the Iranian attack (which Israel ignored) gave the Iranian regime a new trump card: exploiting tensions between Israel and the US to accelerate a quick deal with an American president.
From an Iranian perspective, Trump is desperate to get rid of a war that is turning into an alarming display of US diplomatic and military impotence.
Iran's negotiating demands have been clear: a ceasefire in Lebanon, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the unfreezing of half of Iran's frozen assets, approximately $12 billion; a form of Iranian governance over the Strait of Hormuz; and further detailed discussions on how Iran will assure the U.S. that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, including reducing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Trump came very close to agreeing to these terms, but appears to be trying to find ways to rephrase them to make them more acceptable to his domestic audience.
Brett McGurk, who held high-ranking national security positions in recent American administrations, stated in an article for CNN that Trump has only three options left, none of them comfortable.
The first is to resist, that is, to overcome the macroeconomic pressure and the increase in gasoline prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz , in the hope that the economic crisis in Iran will intensify, heading towards a breaking point that McGurk himself considers distant and uncertain.
The second option would be a retreat by the American president, agreeing to pay the initial costs of the war to Iran in exchange for a return to the status quo prior to the start of the conflict — in practice, a humiliating retreat for Trump, considering the objectives he stated from the beginning.
The third option, equally unattractive, would be a new American military offensive to seek control of the strait and resume key operations within Iran. In practice, this would mean returning to the scenario of the beginning of the war, which Iran not only managed to resist but also turned the situation in its favor.
According to McGurk, the battle over the blockades in the Strait of Hormuz is tilting in Iran's favor.
“The gradual depletion of global oil reserves, which is causing a collapse in the global economy, seems more dangerous than Iran running out of money and oil exports,” he wrote. “Trump’s repeated predictions that a deal is near may only reinforce the Iranian belief that the American president needs a deal far more urgently than Iran does.”
