Iran’s calculations as US escalation looms: Trust, midterms, Hormuz

The dispute is about how to end the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran. Tehran wants a permanent settlement, not another temporary ceasefire. It is demanding sanctions relief, an end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, and guarantees against renewed attacks. Washington wants Iran to make further concessions, including on its nuclear programme.

The danger is that negotiations have repeatedly collapsed into violence. The US and Israel began the current war with strikes on February 28, while peace talks were underway in Oman. Earlier arrangements also failed, including a June memorandum intended to reopen Hormuz and start nuclear negotiations. Iran later retaliated against US assets and energy infrastructure in nearby countries.

Diplomatic urgency is rising. China plans to send an envoy, while Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye have promised continued discussions with Iran. Another escalation could worsen energy disruption, threaten maritime trade, and draw more regional states into the conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage connecting the Gulf with wider international waters. It is one of the world’s most important routes for oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Its importance makes any restriction there a problem far beyond Iran and the United States.

Iran’s leverage comes from its position beside the strait and from its ability to link access to wider negotiations. Tehran says it will reopen Hormuz and resume peace talks only after Washington takes concrete steps. These include suspending sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets, ending the naval blockade, and promising not to attack again. The US blockade itself has already affected Iranian ports.

Before the war, one-fifth of global oil and LNG passed through Hormuz. Iran therefore sees the passage as a bargaining tool, while other governments fear that prolonged restrictions could intensify energy and trade disruption.

The article gives a clear measure of Hormuz’s importance: one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed through the strait before the war. This is a share of worldwide energy trade, not a fixed number of barrels or tonnes. The figure shows why the dispute has international consequences.

The key mechanism is dependence on a single major maritime route. When access is threatened or restricted, ships carrying energy face disruption. Iran is using that leverage in negotiations by tying the resumption of normal traffic to US actions. Tehran wants sanctions suspended, Iranian assets unfrozen, the naval blockade lifted, and assurances against renewed attacks.

The article reports that the conflict has already disrupted global energy markets and spilled across the region. It does not provide a separate forecast for prices or exact shipment losses. Still, the one-fifth figure explains the urgency behind diplomatic efforts by China and regional powers.

Iran’s conditions are designed to address both economic pressure and its fear of another attack. Tehran wants the United States to suspend sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets, lift the naval blockade on Iranian Gulf ports, and provide concrete assurances that strikes will not resume. It also wants a permanent end to the war and stronger deterrence.

The mechanism is conditional access. Iran says it will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin peace talks only after Washington takes these concrete steps. Normal maritime traffic therefore becomes part of the bargaining process. Iran is using its influence over a route that carried one-fifth of global oil and LNG before the war.

The United States wants Iran to give up more before a final peace settlement. The article specifically identifies concessions on Iran’s nuclear programme. The gap between these positions is why diplomatic efforts continue, even as Tehran shows little sign of backing down.

Restricted traffic through Hormuz matters because the passage carried one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas before the war. A prolonged disruption would place pressure on a major energy supply route. The article already connects the conflict with disrupted global energy markets and spillover across the region.

The main mechanism is reduced or uncertain maritime movement. Ships carrying energy may face delays, rerouting, or difficulty accessing the route. That can raise transport risks and contribute to higher or more volatile energy prices. This broader price and trade effect is established economic knowledge; the article itself does not provide a specific forecast or amount.

Regional economies could face added strain if energy shipments, port activity, or related trade remain unsettled. Diplomatic efforts are therefore urgent. Iran is making reopened traffic conditional on US concessions, while China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye are working to prevent another escalation.

Iran’s distrust comes from the gap between diplomatic promises and events on the ground. The article says the United States has launched strikes on Iran three times since June 2025 while conducting talks. It also recalls that US and Israeli strikes began on February 28 as peace talks were ongoing in Oman. Tehran therefore doubts that a new ceasefire alone can protect it.

An earlier June memorandum shows how the mechanism failed. Pakistan and Qatar helped broker terms to reopen Hormuz, end the US blockade of Iranian ports, and create conditions for nuclear negotiations. The arrangement quickly unravelled when both sides resumed attacks. Sustained US attacks followed in July, and Iran retaliated against US military assets and energy infrastructure in Gulf countries and Jordan.

That history hardened Iran’s position. Tehran now seeks durable, concrete guarantees before reopening Hormuz or returning to talks. It is also preparing for possible attacks, according to Iranian officials.

Midterm elections matter because Congress controls laws, spending, and oversight that can support or constrain a president’s military policy. If the opposing party gains control of the House or Senate, it can challenge the administration more aggressively, investigate decisions, and make funding or new authorisations harder. These are general features of the US political system; the article does not detail specific congressional actions in this war.

The immediate scale is large. On November 3, all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 Senate seats are up for grabs. The result determines which party controls each chamber. That control can affect how much political backing the president has for continued attacks or a negotiated settlement.

Timing also shapes Iran’s calculations. Trump previously said attacks would not occur until after the midterms, but he later remained ambiguous, asking whether to make a deal or “finish them off.” Iran is watching both the election and Israel’s vote before deciding how much pressure to maintain.