At 8:06 a.m. Tuesday, President Donald Trump issued an apocalyptic threat to Iran, declaring that unless his demand to open the Strait of Hormuz was met by nightfall, “an entire civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back.”
Ten hours and 26 minutes later, at 6:32 pm Eastern Time (7:32 pm Brasília time), he lifted the threat, for now. He said an intervention by the Pakistani government had led to a two-week ceasefire in a war that has shaken the world economy and showcased U.S. technological dominance and Iran’s unexpected resilience.
Trump’s tactic of raising his rhetoric to astronomical levels certainly helped him find the exit he had been seeking for weeks. That success alone may fuel his belief that the tactics he learned in the New York real estate world — ignoring old conventions, making maximalist demands — also work in geopolitics.
Without a doubt, it was a tactical victory decided at the last minute, which should, at least temporarily, get oil, fertilizer and helium flowing again through the Strait of Hormuz and calm markets that feared that a global energy shock would lead to a global recession.
But none of this resolved the fundamental issues that led to the war.
The situation leaves a theocratic government, supported by the violent Revolutionary Guard, in charge of an intimidated population that was punished by missiles and bombs, and remains under the yoke of a family regime, albeit under new leadership. It also leaves Iran’s nuclear stockpile intact, including the 400 kilograms of near-bomb-grade material that were, in theory, the casus belli of that war.
Continues after advertising
It has left Persian Gulf allies stunned with the discovery that the glass skyscrapers of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and the desalination plants that make Kuwait’s wealthy enclaves habitable could be destroyed by Iranian missiles and drones. Gasoline prices have soared and are about to test Trump’s promise that they will return to old levels once the fighting stops.
And it has left Trump’s political base fractured, with former supporters now accusing the president and his allies, starting with Vice President JD Vance, of violating their promise not to involve the United States in unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
All of this has happened at a time when Iran has demonstrated that it is capable of absorbing 13,000 targeted attacks and still conducting an impressive asymmetric war, strangling oil supplies and sending its cyber army to attack US infrastructure.
Now, Trump faces the challenge of not only reaching a more permanent agreement, but of proving to the United States and the world that this conflict was worth fighting. And to do so, he will have to demonstrate that he has removed Iran’s deadly grip on the 21-mile canal that makes up the strait — and its chances of one day building a nuclear weapon.
At this point, there was an element of dark tone hidden in the Iranian description of the agreement. Shipping would continue, wrote Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, but under the control of “Iran’s Armed Forces,” which would determine who passes and when.
“Iran remains in control of the strait, which was not the case before the war,” said Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. “I find it difficult to believe that the United States and the world can accept a situation in which Iran remains in control of a key energy point indefinitely. That would be a materially worse outcome than what existed before the war.”
Continues after advertising
The same could be true for a final agreement. Four weeks ago, Trump demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” saying he himself would determine when the country would be defeated. On Tuesday night, his tone was different. He agreed to base the next two weeks of talks on a 10-point plan that Iran submitted to the Pakistanis. Trump called it “a viable basis on which to negotiate.”
“Have you read Iran’s plan?” Fontaine asked. “It reads like a wish list from pre-war Tehran, calling for global recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the withdrawal of all US forces from the region and an end to economic sanctions. And it calls for the payment of reparations to Iran for the damage caused during the war.”
Of course, this is just the starting point for negotiation. But the gulf between the Iranian vision of a final peace deal and the US vision is so great that imagining an agreement in two years, let alone two weeks, requires a kind of diplomatic juggling act. The Obama administration took two and a half years to negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump scrapped in 2018 — and that was in peacetime. This negotiation will be conducted under the threat of a possible resumption of hostilities.
Continues after advertising
Presidents have been negotiating with Iran, sanctioning Iran, and sabotaging Iran for 20 years. Now Trump faces the challenge of showing that going to war with Iran produces better results. It won’t be easy.
If he fails to get 439 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium out of the country, along with much larger quantities of low-enriched nuclear fuel, he will have achieved less in the $1 billion-a-day war than President Barack Obama achieved 11 years ago. In that deal, Iran sent 97% of its nuclear stockpile out of the country.
If he cannot reach an agreement for Iran to limit the size of its battered missile arsenal, or the distance they can travel, it will have failed in one of its main objectives.
Continues after advertising
And if his talks with a government led by the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei — who is believed to be recovering from injuries suffered in the bombing that killed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — end up consolidating the new government’s authority, he risks betraying the Iranian people.
It was just over five weeks ago that Trump was encouraging the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. Now, he is doing business with that same government. On Tuesday, he repeated his claim that the new supreme leader is part of a generation of “different, more intelligent and less radicalized” leaders. US intelligence agencies have their doubts.
“Maybe this will work,” said Fontaine, a former aide to the late Senator John McCain. “But there’s a chance this could end with the U.S. and the world in a worse place than when it all started.”
Continues after advertising
c.2026 The New York Times Company
