Deutsche Welle reported on August 2: "The U.S. military is reportedly nearing a large-scale military operation against Iran, but Trump suddenly hit the brakes, canceling the strike plan on the condition that all parties quickly reach an agreement. Previously, this U.S. president, Trump, had stated that the U.S. military was fully prepared and ready to launch a military action 'unprecedented since World War II.'"
According to Trump, the agreement would include the full restoration of open passage through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as elimination of nuclear threats from Iran. He also said Israel would abide by the arrangement and temporarily refrain from launching new military strikes against Iran at this stage.
Trump then seemed to appeal to the involved parties engaged in mediation, stating: 'Let’s all get moving and make this happen!' However, he did not disclose specific details about this so-called diplomatic breakthrough. To date, neither Iran nor regional countries participating in related negotiations have responded. Nonetheless, this is not the first time Trump has claimed to achieve 'breakthrough progress.' Past similar statements have repeatedly been denied by relevant parties or ultimately failed to materialize due to real-world factors.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping route for oil and natural gas transport, with the vast majority of energy supplies originally destined for Asia. Tehran is leveraging this de facto blockade situation as leverage to pressure Trump, as shipping disruptions continue to drive up international oil and gas prices.
For Trump and the Republican Party, rising energy prices have become a pressing political issue. With more than three months remaining until the U.S. midterm elections, voters are poised to judge the performance of the ruling party. Rising oil prices typically lead quickly to higher gasoline prices, and high transportation costs may further erode public satisfaction with the government—potentially harming the Republicans’ electoral prospects.
Commentary: Trump’s latest maneuver exemplifies typical bluffing tactics. He first issued tough warnings, claiming the U.S. military was ready for massive strikes, only to abruptly halt the operation at the last minute, using a vague agreement framework—lacking substance and without Iran’s response—as an exit ramp. He clearly understands that if the U.S. were to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure, Iran would likely retaliate by targeting key American ally infrastructure in the Gulf, causing chaos in Strait of Hormuz shipping and triggering rapid oil price spikes that would directly impact domestic U.S. gasoline prices, undermining the Republican Party’s midterm election chances. His repeated emphasis on military pressure serves primarily to force Iran to concede while projecting a strong stance to domestic voters. Yet, past claims of diplomatic breakthroughs have repeatedly failed to deliver, significantly weakening their credibility.
Iran, meanwhile, has demonstrated textbook-level counter-deterrence, firmly holding onto two strategic cards: control over energy waterways and the capability for proportional retaliation. Iran has clearly identified Trump’s political vulnerability: the U.S. cannot afford the sharp oil price surge and public backlash resulting from a large-scale conflict in the Middle East. Thus, the U.S. dare not launch unchecked military actions. As long as the U.S. dares attack Iranian energy facilities, Iran will precisely target key infrastructure of U.S. Gulf allies, directly shifting the cost of conflict onto the United States and its partners. The two sides remain mutually constrained—while surface-level negotiation opportunities appear possible, core differences remain difficult to bridge in the short term, leaving the situation still in a highly dangerous equilibrium.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872446024772747/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.