A violent stalemate to prevail

Until Israel disrupted diplomatic talks, the U.S. and Iran were in a tense stalemate that, while dangerous, had largely avoided direct U.S.-Iran military confrontation. Escalation increased in early June, culminating on June 8 when a U.S. Apache helicopter crashed near the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration subsequently blamed Iran for the incident, triggering U.S. retaliatory strikes and a new round of direct U.S.-Iran conflict.

While there are reports that the United States and Iran remain close to a negotiated settlement, the two sides still appear far apart on their core objectives. Iran is seeking meaningful sanctions relief, access to its blocked finances, preservation of the regime, and the ability to maintain leverage over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, its most important strategic waterway. But Iran is also seeking to end the war under its own terms and, in the process, a humiliation of Trump. The United States, meanwhile, is demanding significant concessions on Iran's nuclear program, guarantees for maritime security, and limits on Tehran's regional influence.

Perhaps in Iran’s calculus the longer the conflict is dragged out, the better negotiating position they are in, while, on the other hand, Trump appears to be in more of a rush to reach a deal, and his bursts of frustration with the Iranian officials translate into more targeted military interventions.

In the meantime, the US is maintaining military and economic pressure in the hope that it forces Iran to agree to all their conditions. Counterbalancing the pressure, Tehran continues to use Hormuz as its biggest leverage, knowing very well that the United States and the broader global economy have limited tolerance for prolonged disruptions to energy flows through the Gulf, particularly given the potential loss of up to 15 million barrels per day of oil exports and transit volumes.

‍