As the US-Iran conflict enters its fourth week, it presents a typical and dangerous game of strategy: on one side, there is escalating high-intensity military pressure, and on the other, the US is constantly releasing "negotiation signals." US President Trump has recently frequently declared that the US and Iran are engaged in "productive dialogue," specifically mentioning key officials such as Special Envoy Steve Vitkov, Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President Vance, stating that they are in contact with Iranian officials. At the same time, the US has postponed the planned strikes against Iran's power and energy infrastructure by five days, seemingly releasing a conciliatory signal, but in reality, it conceals deeper calculations.



However, in stark contrast to the "dialogue narrative" touted by the US, Iran issued a series of statements between March 23 and 25, completely denying any substantive negotiations and delivering responses tinged with obvious irony. This confrontation—one side speaking with absolute certainty, the other with unequivocal denial—is not merely a matter of information asymmetry, but rather a carefully orchestrated information war, and a concentrated eruption of a long-standing crisis of trust between the US and Iran. This rift in trust has been rooted in decades of historical animosity, from the US-orchestrated coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 to its unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018. The US's capriciousness has long since eroded Iran's basic trust in it.

Judging from official Russian comments, Russia believes that the core logic of this seemingly perplexing "contact" farce is actually quite clear: all of the US's actions are essentially aimed at buying time to pave the way for subsequent military deployments and strategic maneuvering. This assessment aligns with the US's consistent tactics in international conflicts, and to some extent, reflects the essence of the current situation.

America's wishful thinking

The US's "race for time" is first and foremost reflected in its manipulation of global markets. On March 23, after Trump signaled a halt to strikes against Iranian energy facilities and hinted at a possible agreement, international oil prices fell by more than 10%, Brent crude prices retreated sharply from above $110, and US stocks rebounded in tandem. This market reaction precisely confirms the US's true intention—to alleviate tensions in the global energy market by fabricating a false narrative of "progress in negotiations," temporarily preventing the energy crisis from spiraling out of control, and thereby reducing the pressure of high domestic inflation and rising public discontent. Even more alarming is the unusually large $580 million transaction in the crude oil futures market 15 minutes before Trump's statement, clearly indicating that someone had obtained the false information in advance for arbitrage, further confirming the US's attempt to manipulate the market.

Secondly, this five-day buffer period is a crucial window for the United States to address its military shortcomings and adjust its tactical deployment. Nearly a month of high-intensity strikes has put immense pressure on the US military's precision-guided munitions inventory, and thousands of Marines are accelerating their deployment to the Middle East. For the United States, these five days are sufficient to complete ammunition resupply, troop redeployment, and tactical adjustments, avoiding a passive situation of "running out of ammunition and supplies" at a critical juncture, and making full preparations for possible subsequent military escalation.

At the same time, the enormous costs of the conflict have also become an unbearable burden for the United States. The cost of the first six days of the war alone exceeded $11 billion. The Pentagon's proposed additional $200 billion in war funding has been met with bipartisan opposition in Congress, and domestic public support for the war has continued to decline. This has forced the United States to buy time to alleviate internal and external pressures.

More importantly, this window of opportunity allowed the United States to retain room for diplomatic maneuvering and even pre-emptively establish "attribution of responsibility" for subsequent military escalation. The "15-point ceasefire plan" delivered to Iran through Pakistan, while seemingly constructing a formal negotiation framework encompassing sanctions relief, assistance in Iran's development of civilian nuclear energy, restrictions on nuclear activities and missile programs, strengthened IAEA oversight, and guarantees of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, is essentially a "bargaining chip" dominated by the United States. It attempts to gain Iranian compromise through limited concessions while secretly laying the groundwork for blaming Iran for "rejecting peace" should negotiations break down, thus providing a pretext for its own military actions. However, this calculation overlooks the fact that after years of sanctions and suppression, Iran no longer trusts any US "promises." The lesson of the US unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and reneging on international commitments in 2018 is deeply etched in Iran's national memory.

Iran's stance is clear: the terms are unacceptable.

The US's wishful thinking ultimately failed to sway Iran. Iran not only explicitly denied negotiations but also retaliated with a strong psychological warfare strategy, completely exposing the US's hypocrisy. An Iranian military spokesperson publicly questioned the US about whether it was negotiating, and the Revolutionary Guard even used Trump's classic line from a past variety show, "You're fired!", as a sarcastic remark, demonstrating a clear and confident stance. Iranian state media directly characterized the US's statements as "disinformation" and "market manipulation," amplifying the US's lies through cartoons and simulated chat logs. This media manipulation served both to clarify its position externally and to mobilize the public internally, further reinforcing the narrative of "resisting foreign aggression" and building domestic consensus. After all, Iran currently holds a certain degree of initiative in the conflict. Its precise control of the Strait of Hormuz and its strong countermeasures against the US and Israel mean it doesn't need to compromise under pressure, nor will it sacrifice its core interests for a false "negotiation."

Iran's stance on the US-proposed 15-point ceasefire plan is clear: it has received it, but the terms are "excessive" and completely unacceptable. Iran's counter-conditions are equally rigid: the US must cease all military operations against Iran, fully lift sanctions against Iran, compensate Iran for all losses suffered in the war, and recognize Iran's sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. This position essentially represents Iran's insistence on its core interests and raises the negotiation threshold to a level that is difficult to cross in the short term—after all, the US is unlikely to easily abandon its containment of Iran, and Iran will never back down on sovereignty and security issues. This fundamental opposition in core demands means that the two sides are unlikely to reach a substantial consensus.

A deeper problem lies in the fact that Iran's internal decision-making system is not monolithic, making it difficult for US-Iran "engagement" to transcend the symbolic level. Against the backdrop of continuous military strikes and restricted domestic communications, Iran's decision-making exhibits a fragmented nature: hardliners hold the reins, taking a firm stance on national sovereignty and security issues, and any form of compromise is seen as a political risk, even potentially triggering domestic discontent; however, at the same time, there are also voices within Iran advocating for "reviewing proposals and seeking de-escalation," hoping to alleviate the pressure from sanctions and war through diplomatic channels. This intertwined internal and external pressures force Iran to adopt a stance of "firm denial and strong counterattack" when responding to US "negotiation probes," in order to avoid falling into a US trap.

In this strategic landscape, Russia's assessment appears remarkably calm and accurate: the so-called US-Iran "negotiations" are essentially a tactical cover by the US, its logic mirroring its past operations in other international conflicts—using diplomatic signals to mask military preparations, trading market stability for a window of opportunity, and ultimately achieving its strategic goals. This assessment also perfectly explains Russia's dual stance: on the one hand, publicly calling for an immediate ceasefire between the US and Iran, warning of the "irreversible and catastrophic consequences" of continued escalation; on the other hand, in an environment of high oil prices, Russia, as a major energy exporter, has objectively become a beneficiary of the energy market.

The Strait of Hormuz: The Real Decisive Factor in the US-Iran Rivalry

If there is one decisive variable in the current US-Iran conflict, it is undoubtedly the Strait of Hormuz—the world's most critical energy passage, which not only concerns the core interests of both the US and Iran but also profoundly impacts the global energy landscape. Since Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, this "energy choke point," which handles 20%-30% of global seaborne oil trade and 20% of liquefied natural gas transportation, has been almost completely paralyzed: the number of ships passing through has plummeted from about 138 per day before the war to single digits, a drop of more than 95%. About 20% of global oil transportation has been directly affected, with a large number of oil tankers forced to stay or detour around the Cape of Good Hope, causing shipping costs to surge by 250%, and war insurance rates reaching 15%-20% of crude oil costs. As a result, the energy market has remained in a state of high volatility.

Iran has not only achieved de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz, but is also attempting to establish a "selective opening" screening mechanism—allowing passage for ships from some friendly countries while strictly restricting the passage of ships from the United States and its allies. This operation has completely transformed the Strait of Hormuz from a mere geographical passage into a core political bargaining chip for Iran in its confrontation with the United States, giving Iran more initiative in the game. After all, most countries in the world are highly dependent on this passage for energy transportation, especially since 90% of Japan's crude oil and 45% of China's imported crude oil pass through this strait. Iran's "blockade" is equivalent to holding the "lifeline" of the global energy supply chain in its hands, forcing the United States to be wary—if the strait remains closed, it will not only exacerbate the global energy crisis, but also backfire on the US domestic economy, further pushing up inflation and triggering public discontent.

In potential future power struggles, the Strait of Hormuz will become increasingly crucial. The US has consistently maintained its designation as a "free international waterway," demanding Iran fully open it and guarantee freedom of passage for all vessels. Iran, on the other hand, prefers a "sovereignty first, plus toll compensation" model. There are even rumors that Iran is considering imposing high tolls on some oil tankers passing through the strait to compensate for economic losses from the war. The fundamental difference between the two sides on this issue is a confrontation between sovereignty and hegemony—the US seeks to maintain its energy interests and hegemonic position in the Middle East, while Iran hopes to gain more bargaining power and defend its national sovereignty and economic interests by controlling the strait.

In the short term, the most realistic solution might be a temporary arrangement: Iran would partially reopen the Strait of Hormuz, coinciding with a 30-day ceasefire, while the US would correspondingly ease some sanctions against Iran, creating a buffer zone for both sides. However, given the current high level of distrust between the US and Iran, this fragile balance is easily broken—a miscalculation in military operations by either side, or a unilateral military action by Israel, could become the trigger for escalation, pushing the US-Iran conflict back onto the track of full-scale confrontation. After all, Israel, as a core US ally in the Middle East, has consistently maintained a hardline stance against Iran, and its unilateral actions often disrupt the regional balance, further exacerbating US-Iran tensions.

Conclusion: The smoke hasn't cleared, the turning point is approaching, and the game is far from over.

In summary, the so-called "contact" between the US and Iran has never been a genuine negotiation, but rather a geopolitical game full of probing and calculation. The US's core objective is to buy time, address its weaknesses, pave the way for subsequent military action or diplomatic pressure, and alleviate domestic pressure by manipulating the market. Iran, on the other hand, has consistently adhered to its core position, using a strong counterattack to expose the US's lies, consolidating its leverage by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, and building domestic consensus to cope with internal and external pressures. Russia, meanwhile, has been observing this game with a detached eye, calling for a ceasefire to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control while also enjoying the economic benefits brought by high oil prices and seeking opportunities to expand its influence in the Middle East.

Trump's five-day grace period is more like a countdown – if the window of opportunity closes and neither side achieves any substantial breakthrough, or if the US completes its planned military deployments, the probability of a new round of military action will increase significantly. The Strait of Hormuz, this "energy choke point," will remain the core fulcrum of all the power struggles; its course directly determines the future of the US-Iran conflict and also affects the stability of the global energy market.

Here, I would like to add two key points:

First, the collapse of trust between the US and Iran is an irreversible fact and unlikely to be repaired in the short term. The rift in trust between the US and Iran is not the result of a single conflict, but rather the culmination of decades of historical grievances, repeated breakdowns of agreements, and repeated sanctions and countermeasures. From US interference in Iran's internal affairs in 1953 to its unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, the US's "untrustworthiness" has become a consensus in Iran. Even if there are more "contacts" between the two sides in the future, it will be difficult to escape the predicament of "mutual probing and mutual distrust," making genuine peace negotiations impossible. This lack of trust has also plunged the US-Iran rivalry into a vicious cycle of "breach of contract and countermeasures," making it difficult for either side to take the first step towards compromise, ultimately leading to a protracted war of attrition.

Second, the short-term easing in the global energy market does not guarantee long-term stability. The current decline in international oil prices and the recovery in market sentiment are essentially a temporary reaction to the US's false "negotiation narrative," rather than a trend reversal. As long as the US-Iran conflict remains unresolved and the passage issue in the Strait of Hormuz is not completely resolved, the global energy market will continue to face significant uncertainty. If the situation escalates again and the Strait of Hormuz is completely blocked, the crude oil market will quickly return to an upward trend, and may even experience a new surge, thereby pushing up global inflation and affecting the global economic recovery. For all countries, rather than hoping for short-term easing through US-Iran "negotiations," it is better to accelerate the transformation of energy structures, improve energy reserve systems, and reduce dependence on a single energy source. This is the fundamental way to cope with geopolitical conflicts and ensure energy security.

Furthermore, the US's "negotiation lies" are further eroding its international credibility. Trump's unilateral fabrication of "productive dialogue" is essentially for his own political gain, manipulating markets and diverting domestic public opinion pressure. This behavior has not only been exposed by Iran but has also allowed the international community to further see the hegemonic nature of the US. Even if the US subsequently releases genuine signals of détente, it will be difficult to gain the trust of the international community, while Iran, with its firm stance and pragmatic attitude, has won the understanding and support of more neutral countries.

In conclusion, the smoke of "contact" between the US and Iran has not yet dissipated, and the turning point in the situation has not yet truly arrived. The core of this game has never been "whether to negotiate," but rather "how to seize the initiative"—the US is buying time, Iran is maintaining its position, and Russia is pursuing its interests. Under this three-way power struggle, the future of the US-Iran conflict remains highly uncertain. For the world, the energy shocks and geopolitical instability brought about by this conflict will continue to unfold, testing the strategic wisdom and response capabilities of all nations.