War over Access Routes: Sources Outline Trump’s New Strategy towards Iran
Media sources close to the White House said that US President Donald Trump’s remarks about not needing an agreement with Iran signal less a retreat from diplomacy than an effort to demonstrate that Washington holds decisive leverage, allowing it to continue pressing its demands without making concessions to Tehran.
According to the sources, the US administration views control over vital waterways, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, alongside frozen Iranian assets, as two key instruments for maintaining pressure on Tehran.
Supporters of this approach believe that preserving the status quo can weaken Iran’s military and economic capabilities without drawing the United States into a large-scale ground war.
Complex Choices
The same sources said Washington is also seeking to expand economic pressure to encompass supply networks and overland trade routes. However, neighbouring countries’ reluctance to close border crossings with Iran constrains this strategy, leaving the US administration facing increasingly complex choices between maintaining the blockade and returning to negotiations.
They explained that Trump’s plan for the next phase centres on keeping Iran under sustained economic and military pressure while avoiding a commitment to any agreement that fails to meet US demands. Military action would remain a source of leverage should mediation efforts falter.
The president is also considering giving mediators additional time to explore the prospects for an understanding, while maintaining the naval blockade and tightening restrictions on Iran’s sources of funding and supplies. The aim would be to prevent Tehran from securing relief in exchange for promises unsupported by guarantees.
Against this backdrop, Trump said on Thursday that he wanted Vice President JD Vance to devote his “full and undivided attention” to what he described as crime and corruption in Democrat-run US cities. He argued that doing so could yield greater financial benefits than reaching an agreement with Iran.
Trump wrote on social media: “We can quickly balance our budget by putting an end to this large-scale criminal activity. Corruption runs in the blood of the Democratic leadership. We do not need a deal with Iran. Those days are long gone. We have their money, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we have their strait.”
His remarks came despite Vance’s involvement in efforts to engage the Iranian side, and amid growing indications that officials within the US administration are exploring the possibility of resuming talks. Disagreements persist over the cost of the war and the options available to end it.
A Return to Negotiations
Citing US and Middle Eastern officials and sources familiar with the negotiations, The Wall Street Journal reported that Vance is considering direct talks with Mohsen Rezaei, identified as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The initiative would seek to end a war increasingly viewed as a political liability for the Republican Party.
The newspaper reported on Wednesday that Trump had told senior aides and counterparts in recent days that he was open to Vance resuming talks with Iran and had authorised him to negotiate. US officials stressed, however, that discussions about arranging a direct meeting remained at an early stage.
Vance sent Rezaei a message last October requesting a meeting, but no date has yet been set. The two countries continue to communicate through mediators and allies to discuss their next steps.
According to the newspaper, a direct meeting between the US vice president and senior Iranian security officials would be an unusual step. It would reflect Vance’s willingness to engage in efforts to end the war, despite Trump’s publicly stated hard-line position that he does not need an agreement with Tehran.
Trump’s Strategy
International affairs expert Ahmed al-Anani said a strategy of “permanent blockade”, or keeping the region in a state of “neither war nor peace”, remains fraught with risk, particularly amid continuing military and economic tensions.
Al-Anani argued that Trump’s strategy rests on the assumption that Tehran will accept the situation as a fait accompli. Yet Iranian statements, continued sporadic attacks in the strait and strikes targeting air defence positions on Qeshm Island suggest that stability remains elusive.
He added that a prolonged stalemate could leave global energy markets and the entire region vulnerable to sudden escalation for an indefinite period.
US political analyst Stephen Miller said Trump’s decision reflects a strategy based on retaining power and leverage without having to make diplomatic concessions. In his view, the US president believes that control over the Strait of Hormuz and frozen Iranian assets puts Washington in a position to impose its conditions or maintain the existing economic and military blockade.
Miller said that Trump is also seeking to direct Vance’s efforts towards domestic corruption cases. This would allow the administration to promote a narrative linking anti-corruption measures to stronger federal finances and efforts to regain voters’ confidence following the most recent election.
Projecting Toughness in Negotiations
Strategic affairs expert Dr Nihal al-Shafie, meanwhile, sees a clear divergence between the president and vice president over the conflict’s costs and political consequences.
She said that Vance had partly attributed the Republican Party’s electoral setbacks to the costs of the war, which has continued since last February, particularly against the backdrop of rising fuel prices. He had also considered opening direct channels of communication with Iranian officials to bring the conflict to an end.
“Trump’s hard-line stance and insistence that no agreement is needed may reflect a desire to project toughness in negotiations,” al-Shafie said. “Meanwhile, conditions in the Strait of Hormuz remain tense, with Tehran denying that any negotiations are under way and sporadic attacks continuing to keep energy markets on edge.”
