Analyst Trita Parsi stated that the Trump administration believes it has turned the tide in the Iran game. The US assessment concludes that the detour of maritime shipping through the Oman corridor, coupled with reduced global demand for Persian Gulf oil, has diminished the practical effectiveness of Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Simultaneously, the US naval blockade has significantly restricted Iran's ability to export oil. From the US perspective, this has been more costly for Iran than for the US. This assessment has altered the strategic equation. Trump now believes he is no longer forced to yield to Iran's demands and can afford the costs. For the first time since the outbreak of war, the US has concluded that time is on its side. Assuming this assessment is correct, the more important question is how Trump intends to handle this newly acquired leverage. If the US views Iran's predicament as an opportunity to force its surrender rather than a lasting solution through negotiations, the outcome is more likely to be a new war than an end to the conflict.
Iran has proven that when faced with the choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Therefore, giving Iran the same choice again is unlikely to produce a different result.
The only way to translate this unexpected shift in the balance of power into a political victory is through diplomacy.
However, historically, the US has precisely tended to make this mistake. Whenever US policymakers conclude that time and leverage are on their side, they tend not to see Iran's weakness as an opportunity for compromise, but rather as a chance to seek its surrender.
The danger is that Trump might repeat this mistake. He could mistake leverage for victory, turning a potentially advantageous negotiating position into a continuation of the tragedy in US-Iran relations.
