America’s broken promises, Iran’s resolve, and the dangerous game over the Strait of Hormuz

The latest diplomatic deadlock over the Strait of Hormuz exposes the central problem in the US–Iran confrontation: Washington wants concessions from Iran, but Tehran is demanding clear commitments, credible guarantees, and an end to what it sees as a pattern of pressure, shifting demands, and broken trust.

On 11th October 11, 2026, Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, described the US response to Iran’s seven conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz as insufficient. Tehran says Washington has accepted some conditions while leaving others unclear. The two sides also disagree over the sequence of implementation, particularly whether Iran’s nuclear programme should be addressed at the outset or whether the immediate priority should be restoring maritime security and resolving the conflict. Qatar has served as an intermediary in the negotiations. These are not minor technical disagreements; they go to the heart of whether either side believes the other will honour an agreement. 

This is precisely why Washington’s assurances are no longer enough for Tehran.

From Iran’s perspective, what is the value of another diplomatic promise if the terms remain ambiguous, the demands keep changing, or military pressure continues while negotiations are supposedly underway? A country cannot be expected to make consequential strategic concessions merely because a powerful adversary says that an agreement is possible.

Credibility must be demonstrated through specific commitments, verifiable implementation, and guarantees that cannot be casually discarded when political circumstances change.

The core issue is not simply whether the Strait will reopen. It is whether the United States expects Iran to negotiate as an equal party with legitimate security concerns or to negotiate under pressure until it accepts Washington’s preferred terms.

For years, Washington has relied on sanctions, military deployments, diplomatic leverage, and the threat of escalation to influence Iran’s decisions. The United States may regard these measures as instruments of national security. Tehran, however, sees them as evidence that negotiations can become another arena of coercion. That perception cannot be dismissed if Washington genuinely wants a durable settlement.

You cannot demand trust while refusing to address the reasons that trust has collapsed. You cannot preach diplomacy while making the other side fear that concessions today may become vulnerabilities tomorrow.

Iran’s refusal to accept an inadequate response is therefore a declaration that negotiations must have substance.

Tehran is signalling that it will not automatically exchange strategic leverage for vague assurances. Whether one agrees with Iran’s policies or not, the underlying principle is straightforward: an agreement must contain obligations for both parties, not concessions for one side and discretion for the other.

Iran is also demonstrating strategic confidence. It has not accepted the proposition that American military and economic power automatically entitle Washington to dictate the outcome. Its position is that its security, sovereignty, and national interests must be addressed before a settlement can be considered credible. That confidence does not guarantee Iran will prevail in every confrontation, nor does it remove the considerable economic and military risks it faces. But it does show that pressure alone has not produced the diplomatic outcome Washington seeks.

READ: Iran’s IRGC Navy threatens to sink US warships approaching Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz: where the real leverage lies

The Strait of Hormuz is not an ordinary shipping lane. Before the current conflict, approximately one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows passed through this strategic chokepoint. Prolonged disruption can affect crude prices, shipping insurance, transport costs, inflation, and the economies of countries far removed from the battlefield. Reuters coverage of the Hormuz negotiations

That reality gives this confrontation consequences well beyond Washington and Tehran. Energy-importing nations, particularly those already vulnerable to higher fuel prices, have every reason to demand a serious diplomatic solution.

But there is an important distinction: leverage is not the same as victory. Restrictions on maritime traffic can impose costs on the United States and its partners, but they can also hurt Iran, neighbouring countries, commercial shipping, and ordinary people worldwide. The strongest diplomatic outcome would be one that converts this dangerous leverage into enforceable security arrangements rather than allowing the global economy to remain hostage to an escalating confrontation.

Washington must therefore decide whether its objective is a sustainable agreement or the appearance of having forced Iran to submit. Those are two very different outcomes.

Israel’s role: Strategic pressure or child’s play?

Israel cannot be separated from this crisis. The war began with US and Israeli strikes against Iran on 28th February 2026, according to Reuters reporting. The resulting confrontation has made the question of security guarantees central to Tehran’s calculations. 

From Tehran’s standpoint, there is little reason to trust a diplomatic process if military escalation remains a possibility while negotiations continue. Iran can reasonably ask whether any agreement reached with Washington would survive a change in strategy, renewed attacks, or pressure from regional allies.

And this is where Israel’s approach deserves sharp scrutiny.

If Israeli leaders believe that repeated military strikes, threats, and pressure can permanently resolve a strategic conflict with a major regional adversary, that assumption risks becoming a dangerous political fantasy. Tactical military operations are not the same as a durable political settlement. Destroying infrastructure does not automatically eliminate political resistance, and demonstrating military capability does not guarantee that an opponent will accept the victor’s preferred terms.

Calling such a strategy “child’s play” is a forceful political criticism of an approach that mistakes coercion for resolution. Serious statecraft requires more than threats, military posturing, and the expectation that an adversary will eventually surrender its interests.

Israel has its own security concerns, including Iran’s nuclear programme and regional military capabilities. Those concerns cannot simply be wished away. But neither can they justify an endless cycle in which military escalation creates new grievances, new threats, and new obstacles to diplomacy.

If Washington and Israel want a more secure Middle East, they must recognise that security cannot be built indefinitely on the assumption that Iran will eventually break under pressure.

READ: Iranian attacks target 6 ships near Strait of Hormuz in 1 day, highest since war with US began

The United States must confront the crisis of credibility

The deeper problem is credibility. Critics of US foreign policy point to past disputes over international agreements, sanctions, and the use of military force as reasons to question whether American commitments will endure. Such criticisms must be examined case by case, rather than treating every allegation of betrayal as automatically proven. Nevertheless, the present deadlock demonstrates that assurances alone are insufficient when the parties disagree over obligations, sequencing, and the risk of renewed conflict.

Washington cannot expect Iran to accept an agreement whose key provisions remain unclear. Nor can it expect Tehran to treat negotiations as insulated from military threats when the conflict itself has repeatedly undermined diplomatic progress.

If the United States genuinely wants to demonstrate that its word carries weight, it should put forward explicit commitments, establish a verifiable timetable, clarify the reciprocal obligations of both parties, and identify mechanisms for resolving alleged violations. These measures would not require Washington to abandon its security interests. They would require it to show that diplomacy is more than a temporary instrument for extracting concessions.

The same standard must apply to Iran. Tehran must also make its obligations clear, address legitimate maritime-security concerns, and recognise that a durable settlement requires protections for commercial navigation and regional stability. An agreement cannot endure if either side treats compliance as optional.

The final message

Iran is telling Washington that the age of expecting automatic concessions in exchange for ambiguous promises is over. Whether Tehran can sustain its position under continued economic and military pressure is a separate question. But the current impasse makes one fact clear: neither power has yet established the trust necessary for a lasting settlement.

The United States has enormous military, financial, and diplomatic resources. But power has limits. Sanctions cannot manufacture trust. Threats cannot guarantee political submission. Military superiority cannot, by itself, produce a legitimate and lasting peace.

Iran, for its part, must understand that national strength is measured not only by resistance but also by the ability to turn bargaining power into concrete, sustainable gains. Its confidence will matter most if it can secure enforceable commitments while avoiding a wider war that damages its own people and the wider region.

Israel, too, must confront the limits of a strategy built primarily around military pressure. No country can bomb its way to permanent regional stability while ignoring the political conditions that sustain conflict.

The world does not need another round of declarations, threats, and theatrical diplomacy. It needs commitments that can be verified, obligations that apply to everyone, and a settlement that cannot be discarded the moment political calculations change.

If Washington wants Iran to trust its word, it must prove that word is worth trusting. If Israel wants lasting security, it must recognise that perpetual escalation is not a substitute for political resolution. And if Iran wants its strategic strength to translate into lasting success, it must use its leverage to pursue a settlement that protects its sovereignty without sacrificing regional stability.

The Strait of Hormuz is the immediate flashpoint. Trust is the underlying crisis. Until that crisis is addressed honestly, every new proposal risks becoming another exchange of demands, another missed opportunity, and another warning that the costs of failed diplomacy will be paid by millions of people who never chose this confrontation.

OPINION: The mirage of “Greater Israel” and the structural mechanics of imperial collapse

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.