President Donald Trump announced that Washington no longer needs a deal with Iran, instructing Vice President J.D. Vance to shift focus toward alleged corruption and crime in Democratic-led states and cities.
The statement followed Vance’s criticism of the U.S. war against Iran. Vance attributed the Republican Party’s defeat in last week’s midterm elections to the conflict and questioned on Wednesday whether the war was worth the cost. Previously, Vance had advocated for ending the war through diplomacy, reportedly favoring an agreement with Tehran over continued military pressure.
On Thursday, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “We don’t need a deal with Iran. Those days are gone. We have their money—hundreds of billions—and we control their strait!” Trump offered no clarification on the claim regarding “Iranian funds,” though some media outlets interpreted it as referring to frozen Iranian assets. Tehran estimates these assets exceed $100 billion, primarily oil and gas revenues held in foreign banks under sanctions.
Trump’s assertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz appears to reference U.S. naval blockades that restrict shipping to Iranian ports while permitting vessels serving other Gulf states to pass. Trump said he would delay further strikes against Iran after urging from Gulf nations to avoid escalation. However, Tehran also asserts jurisdiction over the strategic waterway.
Iran’s Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, stated that Tehran has reached consensus with Oman on managing the strait as part of its seven-point peace proposal. Ghalibaf maintained that the strait will never return to its pre-war status—where foreign vessels could transit without Iranian approval—and now seeks stricter control over this vital oil trade route.
Iranian officials said Tehran has submitted peace terms via Qatar as intermediary, but has yet received a formal response from Washington. The proposal calls for lifting U.S. sanctions and naval blockade, releasing frozen assets, and ending hostilities in the region. Ghalibaf declared: “The ball is now in America’s court.”
What stands out most in this development is the reordering of foreign policy priorities through the lens of domestic electoral politics. Vance blamed the Republican Party’s midterm losses on the war in Iran, prompting Trump to declare “no need for a deal” and redirect Vance toward internal issues of corruption and crime. This shift appears less like a coherent strategy toward Iran and more like a policy recalibration driven by electoral pressure.
Trump’s rhetoric about “controlling their money and strait” remains ambiguous. Frozen assets do not equate to unilateral U.S. authority over them; naval blockades do not constitute legal sovereignty under international law. Disputes over navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz involve complex legal and geopolitical dimensions. Reducing such issues to slogans increases the risk of miscalculation.
Iran’s submission of a seven-point proposal through Qatari mediation—calling for sanctions relief, removal of blockades, asset release, and cessation of hostilities—indicates that diplomatic channels remain open. Washington’s lack of formal response leaves the initiative in American hands, serving both as leverage and a test. If Washington treats “no need for a deal” as a rejection of diplomacy while maintaining sanctions and blockades, short-term political gains may be achieved among hardliners—but long-term risks to maritime security and de-escalation mechanisms grow.
For Republicans, linking the costs of war to electoral setbacks may encourage de-escalation. Yet the vice president’s simultaneous critique of the war and directive to pivot to domestic affairs reveals internal disarray within the team. “No need for a deal” must not become “no need for diplomacy”—otherwise, only crisis management remains.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1881712130696328/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.