Stop fantasizing about peace. Trump's negotiations with Iran are just a smokescreen; ground troops are about to be deployed.
2026-04-07 19:44:56
In April 2026, the Trump administration's pressure on Iran will enter a critical phase. President Trump recently adopted a hardline stance in a speech at the White House, stating that former President Obama "favored Iran over Israel" and claiming that if he hadn't withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term, "Israel would probably have disappeared from the map."
This statement has been interpreted by the outside world as a complete removal of the pretense of "peace talks"—shifting from a previous "willingness to talk" to a "decisive determination to fight." Is the negotiation merely a strategic smokescreen of "courtesy before force"? Is the United States about to send ground troops to invade Iran? How will this geopolitical game affect oil prices, the dollar, and global markets? This article will analyze these questions one by one.
The Negotiation Smokescreen Theory: Military Preparations Behind a Diplomatic Smokescreen
The core premise of Trump's Iran policy is the internal consensus that "negotiations cannot yield substantial results." Multiple analysts point out that the US and Israel have long been secretly preparing for military strikes, and the so-called indirect negotiations are merely a "front" to buy time for military buildup. According to informed sources, the US and Israel initiated joint military deployments weeks ago, and the negotiations are taking place precisely during this crucial window of opportunity. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council, bluntly stated: "All negotiations with Iran are a smokescreen, without a doubt."
The Doha Institute in Qatar believes that Trump's move to extend the negotiation deadline is essentially part of a "strategic deception"—both to mislead Tehran and to clear obstacles for subsequent military action. Media outlets such as The Guardian have also revealed that US negotiators lacked professional expertise on key issues such as the nuclear program, while Iran consistently denied any "direct contact" with the US, suggesting that the optimistic signals released by the US were more of a tool for market manipulation.
This strategy is consistent with the Cold War-era "constructive ambiguity": using diplomatic smokescreens to lull adversaries into a false sense of security while projecting an image of "America acting with courtesy before resorting to force" to the international community, thus avoiding accusations of unilateralism. (Defense Priorities think tank)
Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Priorities, pointed out that the Trump administration's parallel military buildup and negotiations were intended to "pressure Iran back to the negotiating table," but the actual effect was limited—Iran had long seen through this tactic.
In fact, the US government knew from the beginning that Iran would never concede on its core interests, such as its nuclear program and regional influence. The real value of the negotiations lay in psychological warfare: on the one hand, to convince the market that "peace is still possible," thereby curbing excessive oil price spikes; on the other hand, to build international legitimacy for potential ground operations.
A stop-and-go strategy: learning from the lessons of stagflation in the 1970s
US policymakers vividly remember the oil crisis of the 1970s. The Iranian Revolution triggered a surge in oil prices, causing US inflation to soar to double digits and plunging the economy into severe stagflation. Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman argues that while the 1979 Iranian Revolution caused only a temporary shortage of global oil supply, market panic and speculative hoarding were the main drivers of rising oil prices, ultimately leading to widespread inflation.
The Trump administration has clearly learned from this lesson: avoiding the one-off shock of a "full-scale war" and instead adopting a "stop-and-go" approach. CNBC oil market analysts say that the partial disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has already reduced global oil supply by 4.5-5 million barrels per day, but the market remains "more inclined to believe it's true than not"—because Trump has repeatedly signaled that the conflict will end within two or three weeks or that "a breakthrough in negotiations is expected."
This strategy has made oil bulls hesitant to go all-in. Morgan Stanley energy strategists observed that although current oil prices have broken through $100 per barrel, forward contract prices are still hovering in the $70-80 range, reflecting market expectations of a "short-term supply disruption rather than a long-term blockade." Brookings Institution energy experts emphasized that although the current US economy's dependence on oil is far lower than in the 1970s (oil intensity has significantly decreased), the consequences of a persistent inflationary expectation could be disastrous.
Therefore, a "stop-and-go" approach becomes the optimal strategy: maintaining military pressure on Iran while controlling oil prices through market psychological warfare to avoid repeating the "panic" of the 1970s. This also explains why, despite increasingly tough rhetoric recently, Trump has not immediately announced a full-scale ground invasion—his aim is to keep the market in a state of "half-believing, half-doubting" to prevent oil prices from spiraling out of control.
Risks of Ground Force Intervention: The Hidden Concerns of an "Iranian Quagmire" Behind an 85% Probability
Trump's latest remarks have gone beyond the scope of "air strikes." In a White House speech, he threatened to destroy all of Iran's power plants if a deal cannot be reached and hinted at "completely finishing all military objectives." A Reuters poll shows that 65% of Americans believe Trump will eventually order a large-scale ground operation, but only 7% support such a move.
Jennifer Kavanagh of the Defense Priorities think tank estimates the probability of a U.S. ground operation against Iran to be as high as 85%, but warns it would be a "high-cost, low-return" disaster. Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis further points out that Iran has been preparing for years, building underground missile bases and dispersing its forces, making a small ground force unsustainable in a prolonged operation; "the probability of success is extremely low, and the risk of casualties is extremely high."
Peter Mansour, a professor of military history at Ohio State University (who served as a brigade commander in the Iraq War), bluntly stated that it felt "familiar," expressing concern that the initial air campaign could devolve into a protracted ground quagmire. Experts generally believe that Trump's recent series of signals emphasizing "total war"—including criticism of Obama and stressing "saving Israel"—are paving the way for ground intervention. An analysis by the Atlantic Council points out that if airstrikes alone cannot achieve regime change, deploying ground troops will become an inevitable option.
Iran's resilience far surpasses Iraq's: The US may repeat the mistakes of the Middle East quagmire.
Compared to the 2003 Iraq War, Iran's strategic resilience is now vastly different. Forty years of sanctions have forged a "resistance economy" in Iran, enabling it to develop a domestic military-industrial complex, large-scale underground facilities, and a broad network of regional proxies. The Financial Times reports that Iran has transformed the conflict into a protracted war of attrition, and its resilience is far greater than that of the Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi regime.
Several experts, through comparative analysis, pointed out that Iraq in 2003 had been "hollowed out" by years of sanctions, while Iran expanded the battlefield through its "axis of resistance" (including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen). Professor Fan Hongda, director of the China-Middle East Studies Center, stated that the scale and duration of the war against Iraq would far exceed the Trump administration's expectations, and ground operations would force the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in the Middle East.
Deakin University professor Barton warned that Iran's "endurance game" is aimed at testing the political and economic resilience of the United States. Foreign Policy columnist Daron Asimoglu bluntly stated that this could very well become "Trump's Iran quagmire," not only dragging down the US economy but also threatening its democratic system and national resilience.
History has repeatedly shown that the United States became bogged down in military operations in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to underestimating the resilience of its adversaries. Iran, with its larger population, more complex terrain, and stronger national cohesion, presents a significant challenge for the United States in withdrawing gracefully once ground troops are involved, just as some fear that "the Iraq War will be repeated."
Market Impact: Oil Prices Remain Above $100 for an Extended Period and the Safe-Haven Premium of the US Dollar Becomes More Prominent
The oil market is shifting from "optimistic expectations" to "facing reality." Energy analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warn that if the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the global oil supply shortage could reach 20 million barrels per day, and Brent crude prices could remain above $100 for an extended period. A Dallas Fed model shows that a 20% disruption to global oil supply would push WTI crude prices to $98 per barrel and cause a 2.9 percentage point decrease in global GDP growth.
The market still harbors illusions about a "peaceful resolution," but once ground combat is confirmed, the reality that the Strait of Hormuz is "far from open" will trigger a new surge in oil prices. Regarding the US dollar, the initial stages of geopolitical conflicts often boost safe-haven demand—some forex strategists have observed that as the US-Iran conflict escalates, the dollar has shown signs of strengthening against major currencies such as the euro, pound sterling, and yen.
Despite some analysts' belief that the dollar's rally is "unsustainable," if the war escalates into a protracted quagmire, the dollar's "safe-haven" status as the global reserve currency will become even more prominent: funds will continue to flow into US Treasury bonds, and while US stocks may face short-term pressure, they will benefit in the long run from the US's energy independence advantage.
Conclusion: The Cost of Total War and Market Implications
Trump's current policy toward Iran is highly likely to be "TACO" (no backing down), marking a significant shift in US Middle East strategy. From the pretext of negotiations to the risks of ground troop intervention, and the looming quagmire caused by Iran's resilience, everything points to the possibility of an "Iraq 2.0." For the US, short-term military advantage is easily attainable, but long-term strategic victory is hard to come by.
For the market, this conflict is not only a battle between oil prices and the US dollar, but also a litmus test for the restructuring of global risk appetite and the revaluation of geopolitical premiums. Investors need to be wary of market psychological manipulation behind the intermittent fighting, and prepare for a prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and a rise in the safe-haven premium for the US dollar. Just as the oil crisis of the 1970s reshaped the global financial landscape, the US-Iran conflict in 2026 may once again test the resilience and wisdom of global markets.
This statement has been interpreted by the outside world as a complete removal of the pretense of "peace talks"—shifting from a previous "willingness to talk" to a "decisive determination to fight." Is the negotiation merely a strategic smokescreen of "courtesy before force"? Is the United States about to send ground troops to invade Iran? How will this geopolitical game affect oil prices, the dollar, and global markets? This article will analyze these questions one by one.
The Negotiation Smokescreen Theory: Military Preparations Behind a Diplomatic Smokescreen
The core premise of Trump's Iran policy is the internal consensus that "negotiations cannot yield substantial results." Multiple analysts point out that the US and Israel have long been secretly preparing for military strikes, and the so-called indirect negotiations are merely a "front" to buy time for military buildup. According to informed sources, the US and Israel initiated joint military deployments weeks ago, and the negotiations are taking place precisely during this crucial window of opportunity. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council, bluntly stated: "All negotiations with Iran are a smokescreen, without a doubt."
The Doha Institute in Qatar believes that Trump's move to extend the negotiation deadline is essentially part of a "strategic deception"—both to mislead Tehran and to clear obstacles for subsequent military action. Media outlets such as The Guardian have also revealed that US negotiators lacked professional expertise on key issues such as the nuclear program, while Iran consistently denied any "direct contact" with the US, suggesting that the optimistic signals released by the US were more of a tool for market manipulation.
This strategy is consistent with the Cold War-era "constructive ambiguity": using diplomatic smokescreens to lull adversaries into a false sense of security while projecting an image of "America acting with courtesy before resorting to force" to the international community, thus avoiding accusations of unilateralism. (Defense Priorities think tank)
Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Priorities, pointed out that the Trump administration's parallel military buildup and negotiations were intended to "pressure Iran back to the negotiating table," but the actual effect was limited—Iran had long seen through this tactic.
In fact, the US government knew from the beginning that Iran would never concede on its core interests, such as its nuclear program and regional influence. The real value of the negotiations lay in psychological warfare: on the one hand, to convince the market that "peace is still possible," thereby curbing excessive oil price spikes; on the other hand, to build international legitimacy for potential ground operations.
A stop-and-go strategy: learning from the lessons of stagflation in the 1970s
US policymakers vividly remember the oil crisis of the 1970s. The Iranian Revolution triggered a surge in oil prices, causing US inflation to soar to double digits and plunging the economy into severe stagflation. Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman argues that while the 1979 Iranian Revolution caused only a temporary shortage of global oil supply, market panic and speculative hoarding were the main drivers of rising oil prices, ultimately leading to widespread inflation.
The Trump administration has clearly learned from this lesson: avoiding the one-off shock of a "full-scale war" and instead adopting a "stop-and-go" approach. CNBC oil market analysts say that the partial disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has already reduced global oil supply by 4.5-5 million barrels per day, but the market remains "more inclined to believe it's true than not"—because Trump has repeatedly signaled that the conflict will end within two or three weeks or that "a breakthrough in negotiations is expected."
This strategy has made oil bulls hesitant to go all-in. Morgan Stanley energy strategists observed that although current oil prices have broken through $100 per barrel, forward contract prices are still hovering in the $70-80 range, reflecting market expectations of a "short-term supply disruption rather than a long-term blockade." Brookings Institution energy experts emphasized that although the current US economy's dependence on oil is far lower than in the 1970s (oil intensity has significantly decreased), the consequences of a persistent inflationary expectation could be disastrous.
Therefore, a "stop-and-go" approach becomes the optimal strategy: maintaining military pressure on Iran while controlling oil prices through market psychological warfare to avoid repeating the "panic" of the 1970s. This also explains why, despite increasingly tough rhetoric recently, Trump has not immediately announced a full-scale ground invasion—his aim is to keep the market in a state of "half-believing, half-doubting" to prevent oil prices from spiraling out of control.
Risks of Ground Force Intervention: The Hidden Concerns of an "Iranian Quagmire" Behind an 85% Probability
Trump's latest remarks have gone beyond the scope of "air strikes." In a White House speech, he threatened to destroy all of Iran's power plants if a deal cannot be reached and hinted at "completely finishing all military objectives." A Reuters poll shows that 65% of Americans believe Trump will eventually order a large-scale ground operation, but only 7% support such a move.
Jennifer Kavanagh of the Defense Priorities think tank estimates the probability of a U.S. ground operation against Iran to be as high as 85%, but warns it would be a "high-cost, low-return" disaster. Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis further points out that Iran has been preparing for years, building underground missile bases and dispersing its forces, making a small ground force unsustainable in a prolonged operation; "the probability of success is extremely low, and the risk of casualties is extremely high."
Peter Mansour, a professor of military history at Ohio State University (who served as a brigade commander in the Iraq War), bluntly stated that it felt "familiar," expressing concern that the initial air campaign could devolve into a protracted ground quagmire. Experts generally believe that Trump's recent series of signals emphasizing "total war"—including criticism of Obama and stressing "saving Israel"—are paving the way for ground intervention. An analysis by the Atlantic Council points out that if airstrikes alone cannot achieve regime change, deploying ground troops will become an inevitable option.
Iran's resilience far surpasses Iraq's: The US may repeat the mistakes of the Middle East quagmire.
Compared to the 2003 Iraq War, Iran's strategic resilience is now vastly different. Forty years of sanctions have forged a "resistance economy" in Iran, enabling it to develop a domestic military-industrial complex, large-scale underground facilities, and a broad network of regional proxies. The Financial Times reports that Iran has transformed the conflict into a protracted war of attrition, and its resilience is far greater than that of the Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi regime.
Several experts, through comparative analysis, pointed out that Iraq in 2003 had been "hollowed out" by years of sanctions, while Iran expanded the battlefield through its "axis of resistance" (including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen). Professor Fan Hongda, director of the China-Middle East Studies Center, stated that the scale and duration of the war against Iraq would far exceed the Trump administration's expectations, and ground operations would force the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in the Middle East.
Deakin University professor Barton warned that Iran's "endurance game" is aimed at testing the political and economic resilience of the United States. Foreign Policy columnist Daron Asimoglu bluntly stated that this could very well become "Trump's Iran quagmire," not only dragging down the US economy but also threatening its democratic system and national resilience.
History has repeatedly shown that the United States became bogged down in military operations in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to underestimating the resilience of its adversaries. Iran, with its larger population, more complex terrain, and stronger national cohesion, presents a significant challenge for the United States in withdrawing gracefully once ground troops are involved, just as some fear that "the Iraq War will be repeated."
Market Impact: Oil Prices Remain Above $100 for an Extended Period and the Safe-Haven Premium of the US Dollar Becomes More Prominent
The oil market is shifting from "optimistic expectations" to "facing reality." Energy analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warn that if the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the global oil supply shortage could reach 20 million barrels per day, and Brent crude prices could remain above $100 for an extended period. A Dallas Fed model shows that a 20% disruption to global oil supply would push WTI crude prices to $98 per barrel and cause a 2.9 percentage point decrease in global GDP growth.
The market still harbors illusions about a "peaceful resolution," but once ground combat is confirmed, the reality that the Strait of Hormuz is "far from open" will trigger a new surge in oil prices. Regarding the US dollar, the initial stages of geopolitical conflicts often boost safe-haven demand—some forex strategists have observed that as the US-Iran conflict escalates, the dollar has shown signs of strengthening against major currencies such as the euro, pound sterling, and yen.
Despite some analysts' belief that the dollar's rally is "unsustainable," if the war escalates into a protracted quagmire, the dollar's "safe-haven" status as the global reserve currency will become even more prominent: funds will continue to flow into US Treasury bonds, and while US stocks may face short-term pressure, they will benefit in the long run from the US's energy independence advantage.
Conclusion: The Cost of Total War and Market Implications
Trump's current policy toward Iran is highly likely to be "TACO" (no backing down), marking a significant shift in US Middle East strategy. From the pretext of negotiations to the risks of ground troop intervention, and the looming quagmire caused by Iran's resilience, everything points to the possibility of an "Iraq 2.0." For the US, short-term military advantage is easily attainable, but long-term strategic victory is hard to come by.
For the market, this conflict is not only a battle between oil prices and the US dollar, but also a litmus test for the restructuring of global risk appetite and the revaluation of geopolitical premiums. Investors need to be wary of market psychological manipulation behind the intermittent fighting, and prepare for a prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and a rise in the safe-haven premium for the US dollar. Just as the oil crisis of the 1970s reshaped the global financial landscape, the US-Iran conflict in 2026 may once again test the resilience and wisdom of global markets.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
