Vance acknowledges negotiations are difficult; Trump says Iran "begged" for a deal: A precarious situation amid high oil prices.
2026-05-20 07:46:20
On May 19, local time, US President Trump reiterated his tough stance, stating that the US might launch another "heavy blow" against Iran, and revealed that he nearly issued a military strike order on the evening of May 18, with the operation just "an hour" away. Simultaneously, US Vice President Vance stated on the same day that US-Iran negotiations had made "significant progress," but the US was prepared with a "Plan B" to resume military action. This "talks while fighting" approach reflects the deep differences between the two sides on their core interests.
On March 19, Trump told reporters at the White House that the United States had forced Iran to the negotiating table, and that Iran was "begging for a deal." He also revealed that several Gulf states—including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—had urgently requested a halt to the planned military strikes after learning of them, stating that peace talks brokered by Pakistan were making progress. Trump indicated that he would allow two to three days of "limited time" to continue the dialogue, but warned that military action could resume in the coming days if an agreement could not be reached.
That same afternoon, Vice President Vance adopted a moderate stance at a White House press briefing, stating that there were "only two options"—either a good agreement or a return to military action, with the Trump administration favoring the former. Vance revealed that he, along with Trump's son-in-law Kushner and special envoy Witkov, had previously engaged in lengthy discussions with Iran, primarily aimed at rebuilding long-severed direct communication channels between the two countries and laying the groundwork for subsequent formal negotiations. Vance also emphasized the US bottom line: Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, and acknowledged that Iran "has not yet clearly stated its negotiating position," sometimes making it difficult to ascertain what Iran actually wants to achieve through negotiations.
On the 18th, Iran delivered its latest negotiating proposal to the United States through Pakistan. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Tehran's core demands include: an end to hostilities on all fronts, the withdrawal of US troops from the region bordering Iran, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of frozen overseas funds, the end of the US naval blockade, and compensation for damage caused by US-Israeli attacks. However, multiple sources told the media that serious differences remain between Iran and the US on several core issues, particularly regarding the scale and specific mechanisms of compensation.
On the nuclear issue, Iran considers the US demands to be "purely political pretexts" and has explicitly stated its opposition to directly linking the ceasefire negotiations with the nuclear issue. According to the latest data from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran currently holds over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% enrichment, just one step away from weapons-grade enrichment of 90%. Reportedly, Iran's latest proposal includes entrusting highly enriched uranium to Russia and freezing its nuclear program indefinitely, but the US rejected this proposal on the grounds of "lack of substantial sincerity."
Behind the deadlock in negotiations lies a core, unresolved risk in the global energy market—the passage issue of the Strait of Hormuz. This "world oil valve," which handles about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas trade, has been completely shut down for the first time since the outbreak of conflict on March 2, virtually paralyzing shipping from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. Before the conflict, an average of about 138 ships passed through daily; now, this number has plummeted to less than 10, with over 350 oil tankers and LNG carriers stranded on both sides of the strait. The global daily oil supply shortfall has reached a staggering 16 million barrels, exceeding the combined deficit of the two oil crises of the 1970s.
Oil price pressures have been effectively transmitted to end-user markets. Brent crude oil surged from pre-war levels of $71.32 per barrel, breaking through $111 per barrel intraday on May 18, while WTI crude oil also climbed above $107 per barrel. Goldman Sachs raised its year-end target for Brent crude to $115 per barrel, while JPMorgan Chase predicted that in the extreme scenario of continued obstruction in the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices could break through $150 per barrel. Previously released WHO data on conflict casualties indicated that as of early April, the US-Israeli military strikes against Iran had resulted in nearly 2,400 deaths, over 32,000 injuries, and 3.2 million displaced persons within Iran; however, these figures have since been updated by the latest developments.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal on May 19, the U.S. military seized an Iranian-linked oil tanker, the "Tianbo," in the Indian Ocean on the evening of May 18. The tanker had been sanctioned by the U.S. in March for its involvement in transporting Iranian oil. The report indicated that the ship likely loaded more than 1 million barrels of crude oil at Kharg Island, Iran's oil export hub, in February. At the time of its seizure, it was transiting the Strait of Malacca and sailing west of Malaysia, possibly en route back to the Middle East. This is the third large Iranian-linked oil tanker seized by the U.S. since the start of the conflict.
The current US-Iran situation is in a fragile balance of "extending talks while applying pressure through military action": the Trump administration oscillates between military action and diplomatic mediation, constrained by domestic midterm election pressure and inflationary anxieties stemming from high oil prices, while struggling to achieve breakthroughs on substantive issues such as Iran's nuclear capabilities and the Strait of Hormuz. From the perspective of global capital markets, the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has already had a systemic impact on global supply chains, and the long-term rise in oil prices is changing the energy trade structure and inflation expectations. In the short term, a diplomatic window still exists—Vance's positive signals and the mediation efforts of Gulf states indicate that the two sides have not closed the door to negotiations; however, Trump's "one-hour countdown" statement also clearly shows that military options have moved from theoretical reserves to actionable plans. For investors and supply chain decision-makers, the most crucial risk assessment lies in this: Iran's strategic leverage lies not only in its nuclear capabilities but also in its control over the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz—a leverage that is unlikely to be voluntarily relinquished unless it is converted into equivalent political and economic gains in a comprehensive agreement.
Question 1: What exactly are the core differences in the current negotiations between the US and Iran?
The US's core objective focuses on Iran's nuclear capabilities—US Vice President Vance explicitly stated that "Iran must never possess nuclear weapons" is the US's bottom line, demanding the establishment of a mechanism to ensure Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear capabilities. Iran, on the other hand, holds the opposite position: it insists that the nuclear issue should not be "linked" to armistice negotiations, explicitly opposes arrangements that "exchange nuclear commitments for an armistice," and insists that Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy should not be interfered with. Furthermore, Iran also demands the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of overseas assets, the withdrawal of US troops from regions near Iran, and war reparations, among other conditions. The US has extremely limited room for concessions on these issues.
Question 2: What is the specific impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on global oil prices?
This narrow waterway carries about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas trade. The conflict caused the average daily ship traffic to plummet from 138 vessels before the war to less than 10, resulting in a global daily oil supply deficit of 16 million barrels, exceeding the combined deficit of the two oil crises of the 1970s. Brent crude surged from $71.32 per barrel before the war to over $111 per barrel. Investment banks generally believe that the risk of rising oil prices has not yet been eliminated: Goldman Sachs predicts that Brent may rise to $115 per barrel by the end of the year, while JPMorgan Chase sees the possibility of oil prices breaking through $150 per barrel in extreme circumstances.
Question 3: Why did the United States choose to postpone its military operation at the last minute?
On May 19, Trump revealed that several Gulf states—Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—had urgently requested a halt to the strike plan after learning of it, stating that negotiations brokered by Pakistan were making progress. Deeper reasons include: the approaching US midterm elections, immense political pressure from high gasoline prices, and the potential for a military strike to further escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and drive up global inflation expectations, which would pose a serious challenge to the Trump administration's domestic approval ratings and economic agenda.
Question 4: Does the seizure of the "Tianbo" oil tanker mean that the United States is increasing its pressure on Iran?
The "Skywave," carrying over 1 million barrels of crude oil, was seized in the Indian Ocean after being sanctioned by the US in March 2026 for transporting Iranian oil. This is the third large oil tanker linked to Iran seized by the US since the start of the US-Iran conflict. This incident demonstrates that the US is continuing to exert pressure on Iran through a combination of economic and military means as negotiations stall, and also shows that the US is further tightening its monitoring and crackdown on Iranian oil export channels.
Question 5: What role does Pakistan play between the US and Iran?
Islamabad has become the key intermediary between the two sides. Pakistan hosted the only round of face-to-face talks between the US and Iran in April and has since continued to act as a conduit for information and exchange of opinions. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghae confirmed on May 18 that Iran had forwarded the latest negotiating text to the US through Pakistan. However, a Pakistani source bluntly stated that both sides were "constantly moving the goalposts" and warned that "time is running out," reflecting the difficulty and urgency of the mediation.
The "Rashomon" at the negotiating table and the dual-track operation of military options
On March 19, Trump told reporters at the White House that the United States had forced Iran to the negotiating table, and that Iran was "begging for a deal." He also revealed that several Gulf states—including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—had urgently requested a halt to the planned military strikes after learning of them, stating that peace talks brokered by Pakistan were making progress. Trump indicated that he would allow two to three days of "limited time" to continue the dialogue, but warned that military action could resume in the coming days if an agreement could not be reached.
That same afternoon, Vice President Vance adopted a moderate stance at a White House press briefing, stating that there were "only two options"—either a good agreement or a return to military action, with the Trump administration favoring the former. Vance revealed that he, along with Trump's son-in-law Kushner and special envoy Witkov, had previously engaged in lengthy discussions with Iran, primarily aimed at rebuilding long-severed direct communication channels between the two countries and laying the groundwork for subsequent formal negotiations. Vance also emphasized the US bottom line: Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, and acknowledged that Iran "has not yet clearly stated its negotiating position," sometimes making it difficult to ascertain what Iran actually wants to achieve through negotiations.
Iran's core demands and key points in negotiations
On the 18th, Iran delivered its latest negotiating proposal to the United States through Pakistan. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Tehran's core demands include: an end to hostilities on all fronts, the withdrawal of US troops from the region bordering Iran, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of frozen overseas funds, the end of the US naval blockade, and compensation for damage caused by US-Israeli attacks. However, multiple sources told the media that serious differences remain between Iran and the US on several core issues, particularly regarding the scale and specific mechanisms of compensation.
On the nuclear issue, Iran considers the US demands to be "purely political pretexts" and has explicitly stated its opposition to directly linking the ceasefire negotiations with the nuclear issue. According to the latest data from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran currently holds over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% enrichment, just one step away from weapons-grade enrichment of 90%. Reportedly, Iran's latest proposal includes entrusting highly enriched uranium to Russia and freezing its nuclear program indefinitely, but the US rejected this proposal on the grounds of "lack of substantial sincerity."
Reshaping the Global Energy Landscape Under the Strait of Hormuz Crisis
Behind the deadlock in negotiations lies a core, unresolved risk in the global energy market—the passage issue of the Strait of Hormuz. This "world oil valve," which handles about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas trade, has been completely shut down for the first time since the outbreak of conflict on March 2, virtually paralyzing shipping from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. Before the conflict, an average of about 138 ships passed through daily; now, this number has plummeted to less than 10, with over 350 oil tankers and LNG carriers stranded on both sides of the strait. The global daily oil supply shortfall has reached a staggering 16 million barrels, exceeding the combined deficit of the two oil crises of the 1970s.
Oil price pressures have been effectively transmitted to end-user markets. Brent crude oil surged from pre-war levels of $71.32 per barrel, breaking through $111 per barrel intraday on May 18, while WTI crude oil also climbed above $107 per barrel. Goldman Sachs raised its year-end target for Brent crude to $115 per barrel, while JPMorgan Chase predicted that in the extreme scenario of continued obstruction in the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices could break through $150 per barrel. Previously released WHO data on conflict casualties indicated that as of early April, the US-Israeli military strikes against Iran had resulted in nearly 2,400 deaths, over 32,000 injuries, and 3.2 million displaced persons within Iran; however, these figures have since been updated by the latest developments.
The detention of the oil tanker "Tianbo" has added another layer of tension.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal on May 19, the U.S. military seized an Iranian-linked oil tanker, the "Tianbo," in the Indian Ocean on the evening of May 18. The tanker had been sanctioned by the U.S. in March for its involvement in transporting Iranian oil. The report indicated that the ship likely loaded more than 1 million barrels of crude oil at Kharg Island, Iran's oil export hub, in February. At the time of its seizure, it was transiting the Strait of Malacca and sailing west of Malaysia, possibly en route back to the Middle East. This is the third large Iranian-linked oil tanker seized by the U.S. since the start of the conflict.
Editor's Summary
The current US-Iran situation is in a fragile balance of "extending talks while applying pressure through military action": the Trump administration oscillates between military action and diplomatic mediation, constrained by domestic midterm election pressure and inflationary anxieties stemming from high oil prices, while struggling to achieve breakthroughs on substantive issues such as Iran's nuclear capabilities and the Strait of Hormuz. From the perspective of global capital markets, the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has already had a systemic impact on global supply chains, and the long-term rise in oil prices is changing the energy trade structure and inflation expectations. In the short term, a diplomatic window still exists—Vance's positive signals and the mediation efforts of Gulf states indicate that the two sides have not closed the door to negotiations; however, Trump's "one-hour countdown" statement also clearly shows that military options have moved from theoretical reserves to actionable plans. For investors and supply chain decision-makers, the most crucial risk assessment lies in this: Iran's strategic leverage lies not only in its nuclear capabilities but also in its control over the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz—a leverage that is unlikely to be voluntarily relinquished unless it is converted into equivalent political and economic gains in a comprehensive agreement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: What exactly are the core differences in the current negotiations between the US and Iran?
The US's core objective focuses on Iran's nuclear capabilities—US Vice President Vance explicitly stated that "Iran must never possess nuclear weapons" is the US's bottom line, demanding the establishment of a mechanism to ensure Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear capabilities. Iran, on the other hand, holds the opposite position: it insists that the nuclear issue should not be "linked" to armistice negotiations, explicitly opposes arrangements that "exchange nuclear commitments for an armistice," and insists that Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy should not be interfered with. Furthermore, Iran also demands the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of overseas assets, the withdrawal of US troops from regions near Iran, and war reparations, among other conditions. The US has extremely limited room for concessions on these issues.
Question 2: What is the specific impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on global oil prices?
This narrow waterway carries about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas trade. The conflict caused the average daily ship traffic to plummet from 138 vessels before the war to less than 10, resulting in a global daily oil supply deficit of 16 million barrels, exceeding the combined deficit of the two oil crises of the 1970s. Brent crude surged from $71.32 per barrel before the war to over $111 per barrel. Investment banks generally believe that the risk of rising oil prices has not yet been eliminated: Goldman Sachs predicts that Brent may rise to $115 per barrel by the end of the year, while JPMorgan Chase sees the possibility of oil prices breaking through $150 per barrel in extreme circumstances.
Question 3: Why did the United States choose to postpone its military operation at the last minute?
On May 19, Trump revealed that several Gulf states—Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—had urgently requested a halt to the strike plan after learning of it, stating that negotiations brokered by Pakistan were making progress. Deeper reasons include: the approaching US midterm elections, immense political pressure from high gasoline prices, and the potential for a military strike to further escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and drive up global inflation expectations, which would pose a serious challenge to the Trump administration's domestic approval ratings and economic agenda.
Question 4: Does the seizure of the "Tianbo" oil tanker mean that the United States is increasing its pressure on Iran?
The "Skywave," carrying over 1 million barrels of crude oil, was seized in the Indian Ocean after being sanctioned by the US in March 2026 for transporting Iranian oil. This is the third large oil tanker linked to Iran seized by the US since the start of the US-Iran conflict. This incident demonstrates that the US is continuing to exert pressure on Iran through a combination of economic and military means as negotiations stall, and also shows that the US is further tightening its monitoring and crackdown on Iranian oil export channels.
Question 5: What role does Pakistan play between the US and Iran?
Islamabad has become the key intermediary between the two sides. Pakistan hosted the only round of face-to-face talks between the US and Iran in April and has since continued to act as a conduit for information and exchange of opinions. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghae confirmed on May 18 that Iran had forwarded the latest negotiating text to the US through Pakistan. However, a Pakistani source bluntly stated that both sides were "constantly moving the goalposts" and warned that "time is running out," reflecting the difficulty and urgency of the mediation.
- 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.
