By Kekeli Sir pallic
Following the expiration of a critical 60-day negotiation period, President Trump faces a severe strategic crisis regarding Iran, centred on the struggle to secure oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz. After abandoning the 2015 JCPOA in search of a “better deal,” and subsequently failing to achieve a decisive military victory or diplomatic breakthrough during conflicts in 2025 and 2026 (including a failed attempt to collapse the Iranian leadership), the U.S. administration is now confronted with an aggressive Iranian proposal. This proposal demands upfront concessions, such as massive reparations and the total withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf, before any nuclear negotiations can resume. Trump is left with three unfavourable options: accept humiliating terms, risk military escalation despite depleted munitions, or admit failure by returning to multilateral diplomacy.
Let’s briefly set the scene: In 2015, President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and six world powers. It is the famous JCPOA. The JCPOA, concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015, was a historic agreement between Iran and the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union). Under its terms, Iran explicitly reaffirms that under no circumstances will it ever seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons. In exchange for Iran accepting mutually determined limits on the scope of its nuclear program (including restrictions on uranium enrichment, advanced centrifuge R&D, and facility conversions) the international community agreed to the comprehensive lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions. This includes UN Security Council, multilateral, and national sanctions, restoring Iran’s access in areas like trade, finance, technology, and energy. To maintain transparency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was tasked with verifying and monitoring Iran’s compliance. Additionally, a Joint Commission was established to oversee the JCPOA’s step-by-step implementation and resolve any compliance disputes, backed by a mechanism to reinstate sanctions if significant non-performance occurs.
The deal was negotiated by the Democratic administration but rejected by Republicans as too conciliatory. President Trump, a Republican, was elected in 2016 and moved into the White House in 2017. Trump viewed the JCPOA as a strategic capitulation, repeatedly describing it as the ‘worst deal ever negotiated,’ and he was going to put maximum pressure on the Iranians, promising he was going to get a better deal. He pulled the United States out of the deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. In 2019, Iran also began to renege on its own commitments under the JCPOA in response to US actions. And during his first term, he failed to get the better deal he promised. There was no nuclear agreement with the Iranians.
President Biden attempted to restore the JCPOA but failed. This left Trump with the same unresolved crisis he inherited in 2017. Upon returning to office in January 2025, Trump immediately renewed his pursuit of a “better deal” with Iran. So, he set out to negotiate with the Iranians for his 2018 commitment.
In June 2025, while diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were actively ongoing, the United States and Israel launched a sudden, unprovoked joint military offensive. This conflict, famously known as the Twelve-Day War, began with surprise Israeli airstrikes on June 13, 2025, and culminated in a major U.S. intervention on June 21-22 under the code name Operation Midnight Hammer. Aimed directly at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the operation deployed precision U.S. strikes against key Iranian nuclear facilities before the brief but intense war officially concluded on June 24, 2025.
Following the inconclusive Twelve-Day War, tensions continued to simmer. On February 28, 2026, the Trump administration launched a second joint operation with Israel against Iran, under the code name Operation Epic Fury, to decapitate the leadership of Iran. This reprehensible operation, according to President Trump, was launched under the absolute calculation that the Persian state would collapse within three to four days. Yes, the U.S. military successfully executed decapitation strikes, assassinating the Supreme Leader, his family, and over 130 senior military commanders. This was aimed at collapsing the State but failed. The core strategic error of the Trump administration has been treating the Iranian state as a fragile, personality-dependent regime rather than a deeply institutionalized revolutionary theocracy. As the World-Systems framework correctly predicts, semi-peripheral states like Iran demonstrate remarkable resilience precisely because their institutional architecture (the Assembly of Experts, the Revolutionary Guards, the clerical establishment) operates independently of any single leader. The assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei, rather than triggering collapse, accelerated the rise of an even more hardline successor in Mojtaba Khamenei, creating a more unified and uncompromising adversary. So instead of triggering domestic fragmentation or a popular “colour revolution”, the assassinations galvanized the population, drawing historic, self-mobilised, unprecedented crowds estimated at over 40 million by Iranian state media into the streets for public funerals. Crucially, the military leadership formally shifted its strategic doctrine from defensive to offensive.
Since the outbreak of the war on February 28, 2026, the conflict has progressed through several distinct phases of military action, failed diplomacy, and shifting leverage. After a 40-day bombing campaign, which did not produce a U.S. victory, a ceasefire was established on April 8, 2026.
Following the ceasefire, direct negotiations began. Vice President JD Vance travelled to Islamabad to meet Iranian negotiators. However, these initial talks went nowhere. On June 17, 2026, President Trump and his Iranian counterpart signed an MoU. The MoU immediately resolved four outstanding issues: opening the Strait of Hormuz, lifting oil sanctions, establishing a ceasefire between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, and enacting a localized ceasefire in southern Lebanon. The remaining seven issues (including the nuclear issue and major economic reparations) were deferred to a 60-day negotiation period. But the US, believing the MoU was too favourable to Iran (most saw it as a surrender and a defeat for the US), walked away from the deal in July to play hardball. The administration’s decision to walk away from the June MoU unleashed 25 days of military escalation that would prove catastrophic for U.S. leverage. In July 2026, leaked Pentagon assessments revealed a stunning reality. After months of sustained operations, the United States had depleted its stockpiles of precision-guided munitions to levels not seen since the Vietnam War. America, the world’s preeminent military power, could not sustain another week of high-intensity conflict without risking a supply crisis that would leave its forces dangerously exposed.
On Saturday, August 8, 2026, Iran responded with a new, highly aggressive proposal. Instead of negotiating the remaining issues over time, Iran demanded that all 10 non-nuclear issues be settled upfront as non-negotiable demands (including $300 billion in reparations, lifting all sanctions, and the complete withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Persian Gulf) before any bargaining on the nuclear enrichment issue could occur. It is important to note that the Iranians now have a tremendous incentive to get nuclear weapons after what happened since February 28th.
Now, opening the Strait of Hormuz is the US priority before the nuclear issue. But leverage surrounding the Strait shifted dramatically after the Trump administration walked away from the June MoU. Under the June 17 MoU, the opening of the Strait was settled upfront to immediately halt the blockades. However, the highly contentious questions of ultimate control and transit tolls were deferred to a 60-day negotiation period. But under the August 8 Proposal, Iran has moved these issues into its list of upfront, non-negotiable demands. They now demand unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz, the right to collect tolls, and the complete withdrawal of the U.S. military presence from the Persian Gulf before they will even discuss the nuclear issue.
The 60-day negotiation period is now over (as of 17th August 2026). President Trump remains desperate to open the Strait to secure global oil supply lines, leaving him in a severe strategic bottleneck. Trump faces three pathways forward:
- Acceptance: Swallow the humiliating August 8 proposal, conceding $300 billion, U.S. withdrawal from the Gulf, and Iranian control of the Strait. This would stabilize oil markets but politically devastate his administration.
- Military Escalation: Attempt a full-scale invasion to break the deadlock. However, with U.S. precision munitions depleted and Iranian doctrine now offensive, this risks a wider regional war with no clear victory path.
- Multilateral Diplomacy: Return to the P5+1 framework, accepting that the U.S. cannot unilaterally resolve this crisis. This would require admitting failure on his 2018 promise, a politically difficult but strategically sound move.
Of these, the first is politically impossible, the second is militarily unwise, and the third requires a humility Trump has never demonstrated. This is the true dilemma, which encapsulates the limits of American power in the twenty-first century. The JCPOA, which he dismissed as capitulation, now appears in retrospect as a masterwork of diplomatic containment. His own promises of a ‘better deal’ have evaporated, replaced by a choice between humiliation, escalation, or admission of failure. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this dilemma is that it is not of Trump’s making alone. The United States has faced this choice before in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Each time, the belief that American military power could bend history to its will collided with the stubborn reality that States, even weak ones, resist subjugation with remarkable tenacity.
One thing is certain: whatever choice Trump makes, the consequences will reverberate far beyond the Persian Gulf. The world is watching to see whether the United States can adapt its strategy to the realities of a multipolar era or repeat the errors of its past, this time with nuclear stakes. The dilemma is also driven by the fact that some of its own vassals are against using their airspace to launch an attack against Iran.
What is President Trump going to do at this point?
