Author: Zhou Ziheng

I. Current Situation Overview

In April 2026, less than 48 hours before the expiration of the Iran-US ceasefire agreement, Iran announced the dispatch of negotiation representatives to Islamabad, starting a new round of dialogue with the United States. Previously, Iran had repeatedly accused the US of violating the agreement since the ceasefire began, including implementing a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz from April 13 and seizing an Iranian container ship. These actions were seen by Iran as serious violations of international law. Iran stated clearly that if the US continued its so-called "aggressive actions," its military would take corresponding countermeasures.

Recent data shows that before the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz had an average daily passage of about 20.9 million barrels of crude oil, condensate, and petroleum products, accounting for about 20%-25% of global maritime oil trade. After the outbreak of war, the flow through the strait plummeted to a trickle, forcing Gulf oil-producing countries to reduce output by at least 10 million barrels per day, causing a historic shock to the global oil market. The conditions for Iran to reopen the strait have become the core of negotiations, highlighting its critical leverage in the energy supply chain.

II. Core Demands and Negotiation Basis of Iran's 10-Point Proposal

Iran’s 10-point proposal submitted before the first round of talks in Islamabad has become the basis for subsequent negotiations. The proposal includes several core conditions: comprehensive lifting of primary and secondary sanctions on Iran, maintaining Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, US withdrawal from the Middle East, cessation of attacks on Iran and its allies, release of about $100 billion in frozen assets, and making the agreement legally binding through a UN Security Council resolution. These demands are directly aimed at Iran's long-term security concerns and economic recovery needs.

From a geopolitical perspective, these conditions pose a "bitter pill" for the US. The US has maintained a military presence in the Middle East for a long time to ensure the security of allies and stability of energy channels; a complete withdrawal or abandonment of sanctions would reshape the regional balance of power. Recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicate that Iran currently possesses about 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% and 184.1 kilograms enriched to 20%, with the issue of denuclearization of nuclear facilities and removal of uranium stockpiles remaining a focal point in negotiations. The US favors completely eliminating Iran's enrichment capability and removing highly enriched uranium, while Iran insists on retaining limited capabilities and refusing to export its stockpiles, leaving limited room for compromise.

III. Iran's Strategic Advantage and Escalation Risks

Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy "choke point," gives it a significant advantage in the escalation of conflict. If the US chooses to escalate military actions, Iran could further squeeze global oil supply by blocking the strait and even coordinate actions with the Houthi forces in Yemen to affect the Red Sea shipping lanes. Analyses suggest that Iran's moves are not merely military confrontations but exploit economic asymmetry to force opponents to concede. Before the war, the strait handled about 20% of global oil trade, with Asian countries (China accounted for 37.7%) highly dependent; a complete closure would trigger a cascading supply crisis.

The latest oil market reports indicate that current flow through the strait has only partially recovered, with Brent crude prices soaring from around $72 per barrel pre-war to over $100 per barrel, with some analysts predicting that in extreme scenarios, prices could reach $150-200 per barrel. The US cannot "win" a long-term blockade through military means; instead, it may accelerate the global economic downturn. A rational choice would be to avoid escalation and instead seek to extend the ceasefire or reach a framework agreement through diplomacy to alleviate domestic economic pressures.

IV. The Israeli Factor and Pressure from Regional Allies

The Israeli government has repeatedly threatened to unilaterally resume attacks on Iran and holds a "flexible" interpretation of the ceasefire, continuing operations in Lebanon and Gaza. This constitutes a significant external variable in the US-Iran negotiations. Israel views Iran as an existential threat, aiming to completely weaken its missile capabilities, proxy networks, and nuclear potential, rather than seeking reconciliation.

The lobbying groups in Israel still maintain strong influence in US policy-making. Despite growing public criticism of Israel, this group continues to play a key role in Trump administration decisions, limiting substantial US concessions to Iran. The Trump administration must balance Israeli pressures with economic realities: if the conflict escalates, Israel may gain short-term tactical advantages, but a global economic recession will affect the prospects for the US mid-term elections. Recent analyses show that ongoing Israeli actions in Lebanon aim to weaken Hezbollah, indirectly limiting Iran's room for concession in negotiations and creating a cycle of regional "hot conflict."

V. Global Economic Impacts and Latest Data Analysis

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has exerted systemic pressure on the global economy. The Gulf region accounts for about 30% of global fertilizer trade and 20% of liquefied natural gas, along with significant exports of aluminum and helium. The war has sharply reduced fertilizer exports, with Gulf countries holding a 36% share of global urea exports and a significant share of phosphate exports in 2025, with current loading levels significantly lower than the same period last year. Shortages of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers will directly impact countries reliant on the Green Revolution, driving up global food prices, with Asia and Africa being the most affected.

The impact on the energy sector is equally profound. Diesel and aviation fuel supplies are tightening, with European airlines reportedly having only about six weeks of inventory left, and significant shortages are already evident in Asia. Although Saudi Arabia has alleviated some pressure by exporting part of its crude oil through the Trans-Arabian Pipeline to the Red Sea, if Iran and Houthi forces block the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea shipping lanes will be completely interrupted. Assessments by the International Monetary Fund indicate that Asian and European importing countries are enduring an "invisible tax" from soaring fuel costs, and supply chain disruptions are shifting from Asia to Europe and the US.

Comprehensive recent data indicates that current global oil supply disruptions are about 10-20 million barrels per day, and compounded with the fertilizer crisis, could trigger a chain reaction affecting food security. If the conflict continues for several months, global GDP growth may face significant downside risks, and inflationary pressures will further test the policy space of various countries' central banks.

VI. Decision-Making Dilemmas of the Trump Administration

The Trump administration is facing dual pressures: on one hand, economic considerations necessitate reaching an agreement quickly to restore oil, fertilizer, and energy flows; on the other hand, Israel and its US supporters strongly oppose substantive concessions. Trump’s decision-making style emphasizes personal judgment, relying less on State Department experts or regional advisors, which amplifies uncertainties in crisis management. Reports suggest that during critical wartime moments, decision delays have occurred, highlighting internal coordination challenges.

Although Trump once pushed for a ceasefire to open the strait, his subsequent actions to maintain the blockade and boarding checks were perceived as counterproductive, leading Iran to close the strait again. Rational diplomacy must rebuild trust rather than escalate confrontation. The government needs to weigh mid-term election risks: an economic recession will directly impact voter support, while excessive concessions to Israel may be seen as sacrificing national interests.

VII. Negotiation Barriers on Nuclear Issues, Sanctions, and Security Guarantees

In addition to control over the strait, negotiations must address several complex issues. Disagreements in the nuclear field are particularly pronounced: the US seeks a long-term (even 20-year) halt to Iran's uranium enrichment and removal of existing stockpiles; Iran only agrees to a short-term (5-year) suspension. The issues of lifting sanctions, asset unfreezing, and the continued presence of US military bases in the Middle East are equally thorny. Iran demands security guarantees to prevent future attacks from Israel or the US, while the US finds it difficult to provide legally binding commitments.

These issues are interwoven, creating a "security dilemma." Even if a temporary framework is reached, it is unlikely to translate into lasting peace. Iran may strengthen missile deployments and nuclear capability reserves, further enhancing regional deterrence. Israel may increase its attacks on proxy forces to maintain tensions.

VIII. Future Outlook: Frozen Conflict or Framework Agreement

Considering the interests of all parties and practical constraints, the most likely outcome is an extension of the ceasefire and the achievement of a limited framework agreement, creating a "frozen conflict" state rather than a comprehensive peace treaty. Economic pressures may force the US to accept conditions more favorable to Iran, including partial sanction relief and arrangements for strait passage fees, in exchange for restoring oil flows. However, the Israeli lobbying groups will continue to exert pressure to prevent deepening of the agreement.

From a realist perspective, this crisis exposes the limitations of US power use in the Middle East. Although the US remains the world’s foremost power, in the face of asymmetric threats and economic interdependence, traditional military advantages struggle to translate into strategic victories. Under the trend of global multipolarity, any US-Iran agreement must take into account the influence of stakeholders such as China and Russia.

If it is possible to successfully avoid "hitting the iceberg"—that is, a complete collapse of the global economy—it may minimize the damage and leave room for future dialogue. However, in the long term, rebuilding the regional security architecture, improving nuclear non-proliferation mechanisms, and diversifying energy sources remain fundamental solutions. The prospects of US-Iran negotiations are fraught with uncertainty, testing the strategic restraint and diplomatic wisdom of all parties, with the final outcome profoundly affecting global energy security and geopolitical dynamics.

Data is sourced from the International Energy Agency, US Energy Information Administration, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s latest report in 2026.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。