Constantly emphasizing “approaching an agreement,” now switching to “tough crackdown”—can Trump break the U.S.-Iran stalemate of “neither war nor reconciliation”?

```

The US-Iran conflict is repeatedly oscillating between diplomatic negotiations and military confrontation, and the situation is heading toward a new critical point.

According to CCTV News, in the early hours of the 11th local time, the central command of the Iranian Armed Forces, Khatam al-Anbiya, announced that due to the turbulent security situation in the region, the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all types of vessels from now on; any ship attempting to pass through the strait will be attacked.

This declaration is the latest escalation following mutual strikes between the US and Iran. On the 9th, the US military launched "defensive strikes" on southern Iran, and Iran immediately retaliated with drones and missiles against US military bases in the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz carries more than 20% of the world's oil transport; its closure directly impacts the global energy market.

According to Global Times citing Reuters, this round of violent conflict has heightened doubts about the prospects for a ceasefire agreement and made the already fragile truce even more tenuous. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei stated that the US has continuously violated the ceasefire and undermined the diplomatic process, and Iran needs to reassess the situation. Meanwhile, Trump once again stated in the Oval Office: "We're going to hit them hard today... but we're very close to reaching a deal." Threats and negotiation signals are being released simultaneously, making the market increasingly uncertain about the direction of the situation.

The helicopter incident was the trigger; pent-up frustration is the root cause

The direct trigger of the US strikes this time was Iran shooting down a US "Apache" attack helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz. However, two senior White House officials told Axios that even if the collision between the US military helicopter and the Iranian drone was accidental, the US side had to respond, "Otherwise, it would appear weak and negatively affect our negotiating position with Iran."

However, the deeper cause lies in Trump's accumulated anger over Iran's delays in responding during the past two weeks. After a White House intelligence meeting on May 29, Trump proposed two revisions to the negotiation draft: Iran must lower the enrichment level of uranium within 60 days and promise not to charge passage fees for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange, Trump was willing to accept that the de-enrichment work be conducted on Iranian soil under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a major concession.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed mediators at the time that Iran needed four or five days to respond. But the wait lasted nearly two weeks. According to Axios, during this period, Trump became increasingly dissatisfied with negative reports about his "failed deal commitments" and was under pressure from hawks, who criticized him for being too soft on Iran.

Israel's intervention disrupts negotiations again

Just as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last Saturday told mediators that Iran had submitted its response for approval by its supreme leader and hoped to pass it to the White House by Sunday, the situation changed again. Israel subsequently launched an air strike on Beirut, Iran attacked Israel with missiles, and Israel immediately carried out retaliatory strikes on Tehran.

"We told the Iranians that attacking Israel was a big mistake because it gave Netanyahu a perfect opportunity to sabotage the talks," a regional source involved in mediation told Axios. Two regional sources said that before the escalation between Israel and Iran, the US and Iran were close to reaching an agreement, but afterwards Iran seemed concerned that immediately compromising after Israel's strike would appear to be succumbing to Israeli pressure.

The helicopter incident then occurred, and Trump immediately ordered strikes. According to Axios, the US military targeted radar and drone control systems, deliberately avoiding Iranian casualties. Two officials characterized the operation as "proportionate and precise." Qatari mediators continued holding talks with Iran in Tehran during the US strikes, trying to get negotiations back on track.

Claiming to be "close to an agreement" 38 times; credibility is now the biggest variable

According to The Guardian’s count, CNN data shows that Trump has claimed at least 38 times that a US-Iran agreement is "about to be reached," but it has never materialized. The Guardian’s analysis points out that Trump plays the role of "unreliable narrator" in this conflict—on the one hand claiming "complete victory" over Iran, on the other hand blaming Iran's toughness for the deal's failure to materialize, trying to have it both ways.

The Guardian notes that the White House is alternating between frequent statements that "the deal is about to be reached" and extreme threats like "all civilization will perish tonight." Although this keeps Trump dominating the news cycle, it continuously erodes public trust in his statements. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded firmly: "Despite suffering defeats on the battlefield, the US chooses to test our resolve. Our powerful armed forces will not ignore any attack or threat."

The Guardian commented that the Trump administration is again stuck in a stalemate—unable to translate military advantage into political compromise. The only signal of negotiation progress remains the president's emotional posts on Truth Social. Threats, easing, stalemate—this cycle is being tediously repeated.

Risk warning and disclaimerThe market carries risks, and investment should be made cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the individual investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article suit their specific situation. Investments made accordingly are at your own risk. ```