Trump can end the war - but not the threat
An opinion piece by Eldad Shavit, a senior researcher at INSS, examining US President Donald Trump's strategy toward Iran. Shavit argues that Trump simultaneously employs military threats, economic pressure, and negotiations to bring Iran to a deal, but the central question is what he will receive in return for easing the pressure. The article analyzes the complexity of opening the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's reconstruction, the Israeli paradox, China's involvement, and domestic political pressure in the US.
An opinion piece by Eldad Shavit, a senior researcher at the INSS, examines US President Donald Trump's strategy toward Iran. Shavit argues that Trump simultaneously employs military threats, economic pressure, and negotiations as part of a single strategy: applying enough force to bring Iran to a deal while avoiding a prolonged war. The central question, he says, is not how to bring Iran back to the table, but what the US should receive in return for easing the pressure. The sides are discussing a phased framework: opening Hormuz in exchange for lifting the US blockade, with the dispute being who will make the first move. The article analyzes the Israeli paradox: Israel cannot settle for an agreement that ends the fighting but leaves Iran with the ability to rebuild capabilities, while Trump seeks a way to end the war. Shavit notes that Netanyahu arrived at the UN without a scheduled meeting with Trump, which may illustrate the gaps. Additionally, China has become part of the equation, as Beijing is interested in energy market stability but also gives Iran economic breathing room. The article highlights domestic political pressure in the US, including the close Senate vote on limiting war powers. Shavit concludes that Trump's real test is to translate the pressure into an arrangement that addresses the Iranian nuclear program issue, not just ends the fighting.