Every day the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the global economy absorbs a cost that no military briefing fully captures.
Brent crude is near $120 a barrel.
Gas prices are over $4.
Shipping insurance rates are at levels not seen since the tanker wars of the 1980s. Gulf desalination plants on alert.
The IEA has called it the greatest energy security crisis in history, and that assessment is now six weeks old.
The United States and Iran are locked in a conflict that began with a theory — strike hard enough, fast enough, and Tehran would negotiate from weakness.
Six weeks later, the theory has not held. What has held is the price.
At the pump, in supply chains, in mortgage markets absorbing the inflationary knock-on, and in Gulf state budgets scrambling to price a war that has no visible end date.
Tuesday’s 8 p.m. Eastern deadline is the most consequential moment of Trump’s presidency so far — not because of what it threatens to destroy, but because of what staying in this conflict is already costing everyone else.
Here is what is really happening, and why tonight matters more than any deadline before it.
The initial “plan”
The war began with a theory.
Strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure hard enough, fast enough, and the regime would be forced to negotiate from a position of weakness. Six weeks later, the theory has not held.
What remains is a conflict that has outgrown its original rationale, a diplomatic process that is quietly further along than the public rhetoric suggests, and a deadline on Tuesday at 8 p.m. Eastern Time that may be the most consequential moment of Trump’s presidency so far.
The US and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, themselves a sequel to the “12-day war” of June 2025 that first targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and killed several senior military commanders. Each round was supposed to be the decisive one.
Each produced new facts on the ground that made the next round more likely.
The credibility trap
Trump’s pressure campaign rests on a doctrine that sounds intuitive but fails consistently in practice. That is to escalate visibly and loudly enough that the opponent backs down to avoid worse.
The problem is that this only works when the opponent believes the threat, fears the consequences more than the humiliation of capitulation, and has a domestic political environment that tolerates backing down. Iran meets none of those conditions.
Every extended deadline has taught Tehran that Washington’s red lines move.
Trump has pushed his Hormuz ultimatum back repeatedly since March 21.
His Press Secretary said last week that reopening the Strait was not a core military objective.
Trump declared it non-negotiable the next day.
He said the war would be over in two to three weeks. On Monday, he admitted he does not know how long it will last. He called the IRGC “obliterated” while his envoy Steve Witkoff sat in the briefing room actively negotiating with it.
Iran, for its part, is caught in a mirror trap.
The regime cannot accept a 45-day ceasefire without appearing to have capitulated to an ultimatum, and no revolutionary government survives that optic domestically.
So Tehran counter-proposed a permanent end to the war, sanctions relief, reconstruction guarantees, and security assurances.
Damaged, not defeated
It is important to be precise here. Iran has absorbed real damage. Key IRGC commanders are dead. Nuclear facilities have been struck. Domestic protests have shaken the regime’s confidence in ways that outside observers cannot fully measure. The economy, already strangled by sanctions, is under acute new pressure.
But billboards in Tehran now openly read: “The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed.” That is not the messaging of a government preparing to fold.
Iran shot down a US F-15E, the first such loss of the conflict, and the rescue mission that followed required more than 175 aircraft and hundreds of personnel in airspace that Defense Secretary Hegseth had publicly declared under US control.
The gap between the administration’s declared victories and the operational reality on the ground is widening and now being noticed.
Iran continues striking Gulf energy infrastructure and firing on targets in Kuwait and Israel. Gulf states have activated air defence systems. The Strait remains closed. The IRGC, whatever adjective the White House applies to it each morning, keeps fighting.
What Tuesday’s deadline actually means?
Trump has threatened a four-hour blitz to destroy every bridge and power plant in Iran by midnight Tuesday. This threat should be taken seriously as a signal of intent, but sceptically as a literal operational plan.
Destroying civilian power and water infrastructure at that scale would almost certainly constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, would trigger immediate and severe retaliation against Gulf desalination plants and energy facilities, and would not reopen the Strait.
It would likely close it further and hand Iran a propaganda victory of historic proportions.
The more probable outcomes tonight are: a limited and targeted strike that falls well short of the described blitz, another extension framed as a response to “significant progress in talks,” or a genuine ceasefire framework emerging from the mediation now being driven by Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. Of these, the last is less unlikely than the public confrontation suggests.
The quiet diplomacy that might actually matter
Here is what is underreported in the deadline noise.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has spent 72 hours on the phone with counterparts from India, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Qatar, France, Egypt, and Pakistan. That is not the behaviour of a government preparing for total war.
Iran’s 10-point counter-proposal, submitted through Islamabad, is maximalist in its framing but contains within it the structural components of a deal.
A Hormuz protocol, a sanctions framework, security guarantees, and a reconstruction mechanism.
The architecture of a negotiated settlement is visible to anyone looking for it. Iran holds leverage over international shipping that cannot simply be bombed away.
It is also isolated, economically fragile, and aware that a prolonged war serves none of its strategic interests beyond survival.
The most realistic path out is a structured agreement in which Iran receives meaningful economic inducements to reopen the strait, with a longer-term nuclear oversight arrangement built around it. That is what the mediators are quietly assembling.
What makes it hard is not the substance. It is the performance.
Trump needs to de-escalate without appearing to blink. Iran needs to reopen the strait without appearing to have surrendered to ultimatums. That is a solvable diplomatic problem. It requires both governments to stop performing for their domestic audiences long enough to let the mediators close the gap.
The absence of a theory of victory
The deepest problem in this conflict is one that no deadline resolves.
There was never a clearly defined theory of what success looks like. Striking nuclear facilities is a measurable objective.
“Regime change,” “taking the oil,” and “liberating the Iranian people” are not strategies. They are impulses. And without a coherent endgame, every tactical decision, every extension, every threat, floats free of strategic logic.
The Iran war is not yet beyond resolution.
It is, in fact, at the precise moment where resolution is still cheaper than the alternative. The diplomatic process is further along than either side’s public posture admits, and the mediators have the pieces required to end the war.
The post Oil at $120, gas above $4 as Trump's new Hormuz deadline hours away appeared first on Invezz
