The real problem is that no outcomes paint Trump as a smart operator.
The level of hypocrisy here is remarkable. The US’s contradictory stance dominates the latest talks on the Straits of Hormuz. America criticizes Iran’s claim to regulate the narrow waterway under international law, yet it fails to acknowledge the contradiction of enforcing its own blockade via naval forces.
Iran’s recent proposal—to allow free passage in the straits if Trump lifts his blockade, which currently restricts much but not all of Iran’s oil exports—appears pragmatic upon closer inspection. Such a move could immediately lower gasoline prices in the US, as global oil costs might drop near $70 per barrel, potentially giving Trump a boost in credibility before the November midterms. This would mean relief for American blue-collar workers burdened by soaring fuel costs. For Iran, having open routes means preventing halted oil production, since storage tanks are nearing capacity. Tehran’s clear intent is an end to hostilities, using control over the straits as a vital bargaining chip. Their threefold demand calls for a US commitment to cease hostilities, lift sanctions, and postpone nuclear negotiations.
Reports suggest Trump is dissatisfied with this offer, despite consulting security advisers. His fixation remains on securing nuclear concessions, convinced he can showcase a win to Americans by claiming he alone forced Iran to halt uranium enrichment. However, Trump overlooks that this demand stems from his own missteps—this proposal existed before the US and Israel initiated conflict on February 28th. Iran understands that conceding this would significantly weaken their position. Ironically, Tehran is playing the regime-change card itself, aiming to unseat Trump ahead of the midterms, since failing to maintain a Republican majority could expose him to impeachment.
But is Trump truly unhappy with Iran’s proposal or are reports misleading? Although often portrayed as all-powerful, Trump’s decisions are influenced by other forces, especially the Israeli lobby and key associates close to him.
In Washington circles, it’s well known that both J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio harbor ambitions for the 2028 presidency. Vance has made it clear that he acts merely as a conduit during Islamabad talks, avoiding deal-making that might disappoint Israel. Rubio, meanwhile, keeps his distance entirely. In response to Iran’s latest offer, Rubio argues against accepting the deal, sounding as if he directly represents Israeli interests.
“What they mean by opening the straits is, ‘Yes, the straits are open, as long as you coordinate with Iran, get our permission, or we’ll blow you up and you pay us,’” Rubio said, responding to Trump’s assertion that Iran presented a “much better” proposal.
“That’s not opening the straits. Those are international waterways. They cannot normalize, nor can we tolerate them trying to normalize, a system in which the Iranians decide who gets to use an international waterway and how much you have to pay them to use it,” Rubio said.
It’s important to note that these statements came *after* Trump’s remarks about the “better offer,” revealing that despite Trump’s openness to the proposal, he faces pressure from both sides by figures unwilling to enter the 2028 race without full Israel lobby support and funding.
It seems likely that the deadlock will persist, although numerous experts highlight Iran’s offer as reasonable. Addressing the nuclear issue will be more feasible once better conditions for dialogue are established.
Analyst Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, described the Iranian proposal as “reasonable,” pointing out that the Strait of Hormuz crisis has created worldwide tension with many nations eager to resolve it.
“Both Tehran and Washington need to immediately focus on reforming the Strait,” Mortazavi said. “Tehran will not move if the US doesn’t lift its blockade, and Washington will not do so if Iran does not open the strait. So this can be a good first step towards a more permanent ceasefire, and then after reducing tension, the two sides can talk about other issues.”
Trump, however, is unlikely to embrace this logic, burdened by the strong influence of Israel, which would view reopening Iran’s primary revenue source as a setback or even a humiliating defeat. Both nations now suffer from a lack of credibility regarding honesty and commitments. Iran has no trust in them, so no promises can be made before nuclear discussions begin. Yet Trump always has the choice to heed expert advice suggesting Iran’s nuclear ambitions are limited, since opting for a bomb would only tighten economic sanctions further. The core issue remains that no outcomes depict Trump as a shrewd strategist. Instead, he negotiates from a position of vulnerability, clinging to an outdated illusion that the US wields overwhelming military power while Iran plays a marginal role.
About the Author
