Iran Defies US Pressure, No Talks in Sight: Experts Explain Strategy

President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran on Saturday, threatening to “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened to shipping, escalating tensions following weeks of conflict. The demand, delivered via a post on Truth Social, came as Tehran launched what has been described as its most destructive attack yet on Israel.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote. The ultimatum, which expires at 23:44 GMT on Monday, represents a significant hardening of rhetoric from the administration, even as the president had, less than a day prior, suggested the war was “winding down.”

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global choke point for oil and gas transport supplying roughly one-fifth of the world’s crude oil, has been significantly limited since early March, coinciding with the start of the conflict. The United States has signaled a readiness to escort tankers through the strait, but has not yet launched a formal mission.

In response to Trump’s threat, Iran’s army stated it would target energy and desalination infrastructure “belonging to the US and the regime in the region,” according to the Fars news agency. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has maintained that restrictions on passage through the strait apply only to vessels from countries involved in attacks against Iran and that other ships would be allowed safe passage if they remain neutral.

Experts suggest that despite the aggressive rhetoric, prospects for negotiations remain dim. Stefan Lukas, director of the Berlin-based think tank Middle East Minds, stated that “the damage the US has inflicted from Tehran’s perspective is too great” to allow for immediate talks. Lukas also noted that Iranian leadership has experienced attacks even during ongoing negotiations, fostering deep distrust.

Marcus Schneider, head of the Regional Project for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Beirut, echoed this sentiment, stating, “I am very skeptical” about the possibility of dialogue. Schneider pointed to the targeted killings of key figures as removing potential interlocutors and creating a climate of fear among potential successors, who are perceived as being more uncompromising.

Analysts at the Middle East Institute suggest that for the Iranian regime, simply surviving a conflict with the United States constitutes a victory. This perspective aligns with observations that Tehran is currently prioritizing political and strategic effects over immediate military gains. Lukas emphasized the structural stability of the Iranian system, arguing that it has been underestimated and appears more resilient despite ongoing attacks.

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on regional energy infrastructure are directly impacting global markets, a factor that may be bolstering Iran’s position. Schneider questioned, “Why should Iran stop now?” arguing that wars are decided not only militarily but politically, and that Tehran believes its capacity to endure hardship exceeds that of its adversaries.

The US administration’s assessment that a quick and inexpensive victory was achievable has proven inaccurate, according to Schneider. This miscalculation has inadvertently strengthened Iran’s position despite internal tensions and continued threats from the US and Israel. The question of what substantive issues could be negotiated remains a significant obstacle, with the US openly stating its goals of regime change and the dismantling of Iran’s military programs.

As of Sunday, the US administration had not signaled any intention to modify its position, and no new diplomatic initiatives have been announced.