"They asked for a time out [from military action]. They wanted to go to the funeral of Khamenei. And I said, ‘Give it to them.’ And they started shooting missiles. I mean, it was the craziest thing."

"I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over."

"They’re liars. If I make a deal with them, we have a deal. And he [the Iranian negotiator] goes out, he talks. We make a deal, everyone’s agreed: no nuclear weapon. We make a deal, they [the Iranian delegation] go outside, talk to the press, and they say, ‘We never even talked about it.’ There’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over."

U.S. President Donald Trump

 

 

On again, off again. Decisions made spontaneously reflecting an impulsive of-the-moment thought process, leavened with emotional irritation. An incendiary situation whose outcome is vital to the well-being not only of the population of the Islamic Republic who have suffered since 1979 under the theocratic rule of a totalitarian state imposing its will, meting out imprisonment, torture and death to all who oppose it. And to the larger community inhabiting the Middle East, as the source of inciting to terrorism through sponsorship of select militias whose formation is vital to the regime's agenda of conquest where the al-Quds branch of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps recruited, trained, armed and  tasked them as proxy militias to carry out its death-cult orders.

 

From Hezbollah to Hamas to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Iraqi Shia militias all loyal to the regime, the noose tightened not only on Israel, marked for annihilation by the Ayatollahs, but Sunni-majority countries in the region as well; not for annihilation but the conquest of domination. Its weapons' focus as a means to assert its dominance through technological means with missiles and drones, and aspirationally, a nuclear program to allow the Iranian regime to wield the most fearful of all weapons to achieve its goals.

 

 

 

Upended briefly and temporarily when joint aerial strikes by Israel and the United States complicated those plans by assassinating through pinpoint, intelligence-gathered strikes, military commanders, religious figures, including the most senior  cleric whose direct messaging from above moved the strings of the dread and powerful IRGC puppets to action along with nuclear scientists, and strategic strikes on nuclear sites and weapons depots. Any other country would reel from the strength of those blows, but not Iran.

 

It had only months earlier destroyed the lives of thousands of its disaffected people whose effrontery  in massing by the tens of thousands in street demonstrations throughout the country to demand an end to the regime, and the right to live as free people, enjoying liberty as a human right, refusing the straitjackets of passivity in fear of consequences. Their punishment by state police, the Basij and the  Iranian military was swift, decisive and deadly. Battling military-to-military of two well-armed attacking countries required another tack; the manipulation of circumstances and in this case cutting off global shipping to inflict pain internationally. 

"They want recognition of Iran basically having control of the Strait of Hormuz. That is their bottom line. That is their leverage with the United States and the West that has replaced earlier enriching higher and higher levels of uranium."

"Fundamentally, they think time is on their side. They can suffer more than the Americans and the Gulf and that's what they're gambling on."

Alex Vatanka, senior fellow, Middle East Institute 

The Strait of Hormuz became the winning move for Iran in this chess game of a war. Following the February 28-initiated strikes on Iran, since April 8, President Trump declared one ceasefire initiative with Iran after another as oil prices gushed skyward and Washington grappled with the dilemma of lifting itself out of a quagmire it had no stomach to pursue, in a war that proved hugely unpopular with American voters. This was a president who had given the impression that he meant what he said; no more U.S. troops involved in endless MidEast wars.

 

 

 

Instead, Mr. Trump had to focus on the measure that Iran took to disrupt world energy supplies, along with fertilizer and other critical supplies to a dependent world. Any tankers or cargo ships leaving the Gulf States for their usual destinations crossing through the Strait risked Iranian drones or missiles and before long ships one after another were stranded awaiting an opportunity that never came. Then came the system of fees inaugurated by the IRGC for safe passage. Followed by negotiations and a Memo of Understanding and the war footing went limp, all in abeyance.

 

While the U.S. administration faces the democratic anger of its population persuading it to leaven its actions accordingly, no such constraints face the Islamic Republic, for its population is forcibly mute and as much as it detests its government, the fear, anger and resentment of up to 35,000 lives destroyed only a few months ago, acts as an anchor to further action against a government that will not be dislodged. The Islamic regime has decided to wait things out. Until enough pressure from the U.S. public and the international community against a continuation of the war, forces the U.S. military to withdraw. 

 

US Vice President JD Vance speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force Two, after the US and Iran held high-level talks at the Lake Lucerne Summit, at Emmen Military Air Base, Emmen, Switzerland, June 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard/Pool

 

"Iran is trying to avoid another full-scale war. But it also believes that failing to respond caries its own risks because it would project weakness and invite further pressure."

"Iran's calculation is that calibrated, limited escalation can restore deterrence without crossing the threshhold into all-out war."

Negar Nirtazavi, senior fellow, Center for International Policy