ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeAug 26, 2026

Six Months Into the Iran War, the United States Has No Good Options | Council on Foreign Relations

Summary

Six Months Into the Iran War, the United States Has No Good Options Operation Epic Fury failed to produce the quick victory that President Donald Trump predicted and may be remaking the political order in the Middle East. By experts and staff - Published Six months into the U.S. war with Iran, the conflict’s end is nowhere in sight. President Donald Trump confidently predicted at the war’s start that it would last “four to five weeks.” At the end of March, he said it would take “maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer, to do the job.” Since then, he has repeatedly declared the United States victorious. The reality is different. Iran’s regime has neither collapsed nor capitulated, despite intense U.S. and Israeli air strikes that have killed many of the country’s prewar leaders and devastated its military infrastructure. A rickety ceasefire agreed to in April and extended in June continues to hold, but tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains far below prewar levels. Trump has periodically threatened to launch even more destructive attacks on Iran, only to back down because the U.S. military lacks the defensive interceptors needed to protect U.S. allies and military bases in the region. Stymied on the military front, Trump has recently signaled that he will now wait for economic pressure to force Iran’s leadership to its knees. To that end, he vowed last week to unleash an “Economic D-Day” that will be “the most crushing economic operation ever taken against any country!” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent unveiled Operation Economic Outcast on Monday. For now, the plan leans heavily on threats to punish countries that refuse to “tighten the noose” around Iran voluntarily rather than steps to compel them to do so. There is good reason for that. The so-called secondary sanctions that Washington is proposing could, in Bessent’s words, “blow up the global financial system.” China buys more than 80 percent Iranian oil exports, and it has already forced the Trump administration to abandon steep tariffs on Chinese goods by threatening to cut U.S. access to critical minerals. Chinese President Xi Jinping is also set to visit the White House next month. The potential to roil the global economy and trigger a diplomatic crisis with China are why so many experts doubt that the administration will ever fully follow through on its threat to force Iran’s “complete global isolation.” But with the current stalemate keeping oil prices high and raising questions about U.S. power and influence, can the Trump administration afford to allow Iran to continue to threaten its neighbors and restrict commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz? To get a better understanding of the Trump administration’s strategy and whether it is ceding the once-dominant U.S. position in the Persian Gulf, I sat down with my Council on Foreign Relations colleague Steven Cook for the latest episode of the CFR podcast, The President’s Inbox. [Video: https://youtu.be/Asykfcte8ZM?si=fZu8CHFM0uKxyoK8] Here are my three takeaways: 1. The United States has no good options to compel Iran to meet its demands. Escalating militarily is risky because Iran can strike its Arab neighbors and U.S. military bases in the region. Escalating economically is problematic because it means antagonizing China and risking significant economic retaliation. The White House is left hoping that the U.S. naval blockade will deepen the effect of existing U.S. sanctions and force the Iranian leadership to sue for peace. This line of thinking assumes that the Iranian people will be able to put meaningful political pressure on their leaders. But Iran’s hardline leaders have already shown a ruthless willingness by using deadly force against any Iranians who take to the streets to protest. 2. U.S. allies in the region are hedging against a possible decline of U.S. influence and interest in the Middle East. Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement with Pakistan and Turkey. The text of the agreement has not been released, so it is difficult to know what to make of claims that it constitutes a true defensive alliance with significant NATO–like protections. Pakistan and Turkey certainly did not, as Steven put it, “send the cavalry to help” when the Houthis fired on Saudi Arabia just forty-eight hours after the agreement was signed. The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, is placing its chips on deepening the Abraham Accords, rather than following Riyadh. The rift between the two regional powers is real and could complicate U.S. diplomacy going forward. 3. The U.S. military presence in the Gulf will likely diminish in the years to come, but that could be a mixed blessing. For years, policymakers and experts have argued that the United States should reduce its role in the Middle East. In recent months, Steven and other Middle East experts have argued that this process is already underway as the Iran war ushers in a new regional order. But be careful what you wish for: a United States that is less involved in the Middle East could still see events emerging from the region that harm U.S. interests. As Steven put it, the “Iranians, the Saudis, the Turks, the Israelis, and others are going to try to order the region [in a way] that best serves their interests. And there’s the possibility for continued conflict and chaos as a result.” Oscar Berry and Asher Ross assisted in the preparation of this article. This work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyChina

Sources

  • CurrentsAPI

    Six Months Into the Iran War, the United States Has No Good Options Operation Epic Fury failed to produce the quick victory that President Donald Trump predicted and may be remaking the political order in the Middle East. By experts and staff - Published Six months into the U.S.

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedIsraelIran
1 source

Qatar PM to visit Tehran to pursue mediation efforts By Yomna Ehab and Parisa Hafezi CAIRO/DUBAI, Aug 27 (Reuters) - Qatar's prime minister will visit Tehran on Thursday in an effort to relaunch diplomacy after the U.S. and Iran traded recriminations over Washington's promise to increase economic pressure on Tehran by targeting its trade partners for sanctions.

Qatar, a Gulf neighbour of Iran and a U.S. ally, has served as a back-channel negotiator for the warring parties and played a direct role in securing the June ceasefire that briefly led to a cessation of hostilities. The visit comes as the war nears its sixth month with fighting largely paused but no diplomatic breakthrough in sight.

The two sides remain at odds over control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global oil supplies that Tehran has used as leverage. The memorandum of understanding broke down in part because of differences over the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman where one-fifth of the world's oil supplies passed before the war began on February 28.

The guns have gone mostly silent — the U.S. military's Central Command has not reported any attacks on Iran for nearly a month. Washington appears to be leaning more on economic pressure by announcing plans to cut Iran off from its trading partners with increased sanctions.

Hormuz oil flows have fallen to a three-month low, with just 5 million barrels per day transiting on Monday, according to the latest ship-tracking data. Before the war, the strait carried roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude oil. Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday that Iran and Oman had agreed how to share the waterway and its revenues, but a senior Iranian source later said the two countries were still working on the details of an agreement.

Despite an aerial bombardment earlier in the war that severely diminished Iran's conventional forces, Tehran has maintained enough missile and drone capability to attack Gulf neighbours that house U.S. military bases and disrupt oil tankers in the strait.

The U.N.'s International Maritime Organization has reported 70 incidents in the Strait of Hormuz since February 28 that have killed 19 seafarers. Thousands of others have died, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran with the stated goals of denying Iran a nuclear weapon, helping Iranians topple their government, and destroying Iran's missile programme.

MEDIATOR Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani will discuss the continuation of Qatar's mediation efforts and other developments in the region during his visit to Tehran on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said.

Qatar's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on X that Sheikh Mohammed would also address freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the need to return to the status quo before February 28, while also discussing with Iranian officials ways to "de-escalate tensions and create the conditions conducive to dialogue.

" The international waterway was open to free navigation before the war, but Iran has since clung to its control of the strait as leverage and a revenue source, seeking to charge ships a commission, which the U.S. has opposed. "An agreement with Oman over the Strait of Hormuz has not been finalised," the senior Iranian source told Reuters, adding that the talks were continuing on the details of an accord.

That seemed to contradict a statement by Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi, a spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who said Iran and Oman had "reached results that are acceptable to both sides" on controlling the strait and its revenues.

Mohebbi said the strait would remain shut unless the U.S. met Tehran's conditions under the interim ceasefire, or memorandum of understanding, that the two sides signed in June before it unravelled. Those conditions include an end to the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, compensation and removal of sanctions.

Iran and Oman have held on-and-off talks for weeks about controlling traffic through the strait. Tehran and Washington have each tried to assert control over the channel, imposing separate blockades.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussiaChina
1 source

Hormuz And The Law Of Diminishing Returns: When Leverage Burns

Authored by Tamuz Itai via The Epoch Times,

For months, the assumption that the Strait of Hormuz was Tehran's ultimate card dominated commentary on the war. Vessels are seen in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on Aug. 10, 2026. Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

As a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas had historically passed, it appeared to be a chokepoint Iran could close or severely disrupt at will. It did not need to destroy every tanker. Hitting a small percentage with drones, cruise missiles, speedboats, or mines would spike insurance rates, deter crews and companies, and effectively shut the strait without continuous physical control.

This idea was not new for 2026. It had long been a feature of the Iranian strategic posture, treated as both a military instrument and a political myth-proof that even under pressure Tehran retained a decisive lever over the global energy system. Parts of the Western media and independent analysts amplified the same narrative.

Relying on incomplete open-source shipping data, especially once vessels began sailing dark, many concluded that the United States had been caught unprepared and lacked a realistic path to reopen the waterway. Hormuz, they argued, was effectively closed or closable at Iran's discretion. That framing was powerful, but also incomplete.

How the Threat Has Been Eroded

The assumption that Iran's detection and targeting system could not be dismantled without dramatic escalation proved wrong. Under the U.S. Central Command, also known as CENTCOM, and with significant involvement from the Fifth Fleet and Air Force components, the United States ran a sustained effort to degrade the sensors Iran needed to find and hit ships.

Iran relied on mobile truck-mounted radars, drones, cruise missiles, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) speedboats, and naval mines. Inside the narrow strait, ships move in relatively predictable lanes. Iran combined active radars with passive electro-optical and infrared cameras on elevated terrain and islands such as Qeshm, Larak, and Abu Musa.

Mobile radars would radiate briefly to locate shipping, then shut down and move before anti-radiation missiles could arrive. Once a ship's approximate position was known, strike systems could be sent to search.

The vulnerability was that every radar emission could be detected. American aircraft responded systematically with anti-radiation missiles while visual and intelligence efforts located the passive sensors. This was the core of what some involved called "draining the swamp."

Iran had redundancy, but the number of sensors was finite. Hundreds of precision strikes gradually reduced Iran's ability to see traffic in the strait. As the detection layer thinned, the effectiveness of the strike systems declined with it.

Parallel efforts neutralized mines with unmanned vessels and declared the southern lane near Oman largely clear. Convoys moved under escort, often at night with the automated information system (AIS) off. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with Aegis radars and standard missile (SM)-family interceptors formed the backbone; drones and Apache helicopters armed with laser-guided rockets provided additional cover. American ships also engaged IRGC speedboats that closed on the convoys.

On the commercial side, the United States addressed insurance barriers. In early March, President Donald Trump directed the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide political risk insurance and guarantees for maritime trade.

The DFC, working with the Treasury and CENTCOM, established a revolving reinsurance facility of roughly $20 billion-later expanded with private partners including Chubb-focused on hull, machinery, and cargo cover. Early uptake was limited. As Iranian success rates fell, more vessels joined.

Results have been significant. CENTCOM has reported assisting well over a thousand commercial vessels and moving hundreds of millions of barrels since the spring. Independent trackers often showed lower numbers because much of the traffic sailed dark. Pre-war throughput was 20 million to 21 million barrels per day.

Flows through Hormuz remain below that, but combined with the Abu Dhabi-Fujairah pipeline and Saudi Arabia's pipeline to Yanbu in the Red Sea, volumes recovered enough to keep oil prices in the $85 to $95 range-elevated, but far from the predicted catastrophe.

Not Seeing the True Picture

Public data lagged for both technical and psychological reasons. Ships that went dark during transit normally turned their AIS trackers back on afterward, so theoretically they could have been tracked and counted, yet matching was imperfect amid overlapping night movements, incomplete satellite reception, intermittent signals, and ship-to-ship transfers.

Commercial trackers attempt corrections using imagery and other data, but confidence thresholds still produce undercounts relative to what escorting forces could see.

There was also a narrative reason. The story of Iranian success and American failure fit expectations many already held. Contradictory evidence produced cognitive dissonance. The common response was to protect the original frame-by applying greater skepticism to inconvenient details and treating quieter progress as temporary.

In a contested information environment, narratives that confirm prior expectations often outlast those that require revision.

The General Principle

Hormuz illustrates a broader pattern. Leverage is often strongest while latent. The threat shapes behavior; the target hedges or hopes the card is never played. Once used at scale, incentives change. Real costs appear, and the value of neutralizing the threat rises sharply.

Adaptation follows: sensors are hunted, escorts are organized, alternative routes are accelerated, commercial workarounds are found. Over time, the original leverage delivers diminishing returns. The coercer frequently ends up weaker than before.

The pattern is not unique. In 1973, Arab oil producers cut exports and raised prices. The short-term shock was severe; the longer-term response included efficiency gains, strategic reserves, non-OPEC production, and the shale revolution.

Russia's gas cut-offs against Europe from 2021 to 2022 produced a similar arc: LNG expansion, storage, demand reduction, and alternative suppliers collapsed Moscow's share of the European market, forcing it to sell more of its supply with heavy discounts to China and others.

China's 2010 rare-earth restrictions against Japan spurred alternative mining, recycling, and substitution. In recent years, the United States has also accelerated the shift with CHIPS Act funding, Department of Defense equity stakes and loans, price-floor and offtake arrangements, and Project Vault, which includes equity stakes in key producers and a strategic minerals reserve, while expanding cooperation with partners such as Australia.

Remaining Levers and Their Limits

If the Hormuz card is already delivering diminishing returns, what options remain for Iran?

The most consequential underused lever is a more systematic campaign against Gulf energy production itself-fields, processing plants, refineries, and downstream industries. Iran has already struck these targets at a meaningful scale. What has not been fully attempted is a sustained multi-country effort at lasting destruction of capacity.

Other potential levers include intensified proxies, cyber operations, pressure on Bab el-Mandeb, residual nuclear signaling, and heavier strikes on U.S. bases or critical infrastructure. Each retains some potential.

Yet the same logic applies. Further large-scale use would accelerate the responses that reduce effectiveness. At the same time, the regime faces continuous economic pressure from the U.S. naval blockade, oil-export enforcement, and broader "Operation Economic Outcast" sanctions. Escalation under that siege significantly raises costs and shortens the runway.

Another option might be a distraction elsewhere, perhaps initiated by another country in the emerging axis of Chinese Communist Party-dependent countries, such as Russia, North Korea, or China itself.

The battle for the strait is not the entire war. It has, however, illustrated a recurring feature of strategy: geographic and resource levers look most formidable while they remain latent. Once put into continuous action, they often set in motion the forces that ultimately reduce their power.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 21:45

Location: Arak
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran
1 source

This is an entry from: Live: Hegseth says military action still possible in US-Israel war on Iran Tanker struck by unknown projectile in Hormuz Strait, UKMTO says 27 August 2026 02:15 BST A vessel was hit by an unknown projectile in the Strait of Hormuz, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency said early on Thursday.

The strike caused a fire that was later extinguished. No environmental impact was reported and all crew members were safe and accounted for.

Location: Strait of Hormuz