Stalemate at the Strait of Hormuz

The stalemate at the Strait of Hormuz highlights the failure of former U.S. President Donald Trump's strategy against Iran and the limits of American power in imposing conditions on Tehran. The rejection by Trump of an Iranian proposal to reopen the strait, followed by Iran's refusal to compromise, has rendered diplomatic efforts ineffective.

Rupture of the Memorandum of Understanding

The rupture of the memorandum of understanding signed in June 2026, intended to initiate a sixty-day negotiation period, has left the situation in a complete deadlock. The text expired by August, undermined by renewed hostilities from Washington in July, which disrupted the diplomatic process.

Shift to Political Arena

Facing the diplomatic deadlock, the White House has shifted focus to the political arena. This move was accompanied by a strong verbal offensive from Trump during his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2026, where he issued threats against Iran, revealing the fragility of his political strategy.

Trump's Electoral Strategy

Trump is now attempting to secure a ceasefire aligned with the electoral calendar. This temporary pause in hostilities serves as an ultimatum to Iran, pushing them to comply with American demands. However, Iran's refusal to yield under pressure has left the Trump administration without effective coercive tools.

Decision-Making Process

Journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, in their book Regime Change, reveal the unusual decision-making process that led to the U.S. involvement in the conflict. They highlight the influence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who pushed Trump toward direct confrontation despite reservations from the intelligence community and military hierarchy.

Influence of White House Loyalists

According to Haberman and Swan, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and Trump's personal assistant Natalie Harp played a significant role in shaping Trump's decisions. Unlike military officials, these individuals controlled the information reaching the president, allowing external influences like Netanyahu to directly impact policy without internal checks.

Criticism of the Memorandum

The memorandum of understanding was widely criticized as a diplomatic translation of the military and strategic failure in the region. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama and former envoy Robert Malley condemned the agreement, with Fukuyama calling it a "total surrender" and Malley noting that Trump accepted worse terms than conventional diplomacy could have achieved.

Systemic Weakness of U.S. Hegemony

The inability to restore free passage through the Strait of Hormuz calls into question the two pillars of American global strategy since 1945: military superiority and the ability to secure global energy supplies. Data from Kpler show that the partial resumption of traffic through the strait is a technical and precarious adaptation, not a true reopening.

Economic and Strategic Consequences

The inability of Washington to ensure a lasting reopening of the Strait of Hormuz reflects a broader decline in American power. Some ships now pay transit fees to Iran for passage, while about 40% of exports bypass the strait through land routes or ship-to-ship transfers. This situation has been described by academic Alfred McCoy as a sign of the decline of U.S. influence in the region.

Iran's Strategic Advantage

Tehran now sees the cost of the current status quo as manageable and has taken the initiative by targeting U.S. infrastructure in Jordan. Only a radical shift in U.S. assessment of the balance of power, recognizing the threat to its own interests, could lead to a resolution of the situation.