Trump can declare Iran victory now and withdraw troops, former counterterror official argues

By Imani Sutton · Reporting from Atlanta · August 3, 2026

The language used to describe global flashpoints has become exhausting. It’s always about "deals," always about "solutions" that sound suspiciously like power plays dressed up in diplomatic silk.

Nothing gets through unless a Deal, or Total Surrender, is accomplished.

The language used to describe global flashpoints has become exhausting. It’s always about "deals," always about "solutions" that sound suspiciously like power plays dressed up in diplomatic silk. This week’s performance—the endless cycle of threat and retraction surrounding the Strait of Hormuz—is no different. The narrative, pushed by Washington's most vocal evangelists on Truth Social, suggests a simple binary: cooperation or total collapse. That nothing gets through unless a Deal, or Total Surrender, is accomplished. It’s a beautifully engineered scarcity model.

Donald Trump, speaking to the world from his platform of choice, repeatedly labeled Iranian leadership as "unbelievably duplicitous." He pointed out that while Tehran allegedly requested talks and then claimed they were only with Oman, this was proof positive of bad faith. The messaging—repeated across reports by The Guardian and Al Jazeera—was crystal clear: the US blockade is absolute; the Strait of Hormuz remains "already completely controlled by the United States Navy." This rhetoric demands that all global commerce, particularly the 20% of world crude oil flowing through that chokepoint, must bend to American will. The implication, which I find profoundly cynical, is that the only way for global energy prices (which indeed saw massive swings, dropping sharply on Monday after planned strikes were canceled) to stabilize is by accepting a pre-written script dictated from Washington.

When Diplomacy Becomes an Infrastructure Project

The core mechanism here isn't diplomacy; it’s control over critical infrastructure—the pipelines of oil and the waterways that move everything else. The moment you can threaten to cut off access, you have successfully priced out any genuine negotiation. This is a textbook lesson in engineered scarcity, one I recognize from history: the Berlin Blockade.

In 1948, the Soviet Union attempted to isolate West Berlin by cutting off all railway, road, and canal access. They offered withdrawal only if the Western Allies abandoned the newly introduced Deutsche Mark—a financial mechanism designed to force compliance. The shared mechanism is unmistakable: a superpower attempts to contain a strategic pocket of influence by severing every means of physical or economic access, forcing reliance on external lifelines (in Berlin’s case, airlifts; in Hormuz’s case, tacit agreement).

The current rhetoric—the threat of the "Wall of Steel"—is nothing more than an attempt to replicate that historical pressure. The US claims total control over passage, making any alternative route seem impossible or illegitimate. Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, counters this by stating Tehran is pursuing multiple diplomatic tracks and is only dealing with Oman regarding a joint temporary shipping corridor through the strait. BBC reported that these talks are focused on securing a specific northern/southern passage for commercial vessels—a practical engineering solution to an economic problem, not a surrender document.

The Price of Perpetual Threat

The insistence on "Deal or Total Surrender" is fundamentally anti-negotiation. It demands the acceptance of the status quo power structure: US military dominance and the right to unilaterally dictate global trade flow through strategically vital waterways. This pattern—the threat of physical cutoff used to force compliance with a specific economic model—is how empires maintain their ledger.

The moment you can threaten to choke off the supply, you have successfully priced out any genuine alternative. The history shows that this mechanism rarely leads to stable peace; it only forces temporary, highly controlled adjustments until the next crisis emerges. It is always about who controls the flow of capital and energy—the ultimate commodity.

The truth remains that geopolitical conflict isn't solved by grandstanding on social media platforms or through threats of massive strikes. It requires a verifiable, shared understanding of global infrastructure needs and an acknowledgement that no single power can afford to treat vital waterways as personal leverage points. The only way out of this cycle is the recognition that scarcity—whether it’s oil, rent, or access—is not a natural condition; it is always engineered upstream by someone who profits from the resulting chokehold.

Trump can declare Iran victory now and withdraw troops, former counterterror official argues

Nothing gets through unless a Deal, or Total Surrender, is accomplished.

When Diplomacy Becomes an Infrastructure Project

The Price of Perpetual Threat

Sources