Iran Deal Debate Turns on 39-Day War and Strait of Hormuz Blockade
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · May 26
Iran Deal Debate Turns on 39-Day War and Strait of Hormuz Blockade
7 articles · Updated · The New York Times · May 26
A New York Times opinion essay argues a deal with Iran could turn a shaky cease-fire into a longer truce and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, easing pressure on the global economy.
The case for negotiations rests on rising energy-price risks, the danger of a costly military push to reopen the strait, and the difficulty of forcing Iran to surrender highly enriched uranium buried at Isfahan.
U.S. constraints also shape that argument: the piece says Washington is running low on key munitions, especially missile interceptors, and Trump had promised only a brief Iran "excursion," not a prolonged war.
But the essay warns a deal after just 39 days and 13 U.S. fatalities could let Iran claim victory, signal U.S. weakness to China and regional allies, and encourage Tehran to use future Hormuz blockades as leverage.
With its military edge blunted and munitions low, is America negotiating a lasting peace or just buying time?
If a deal rewards Iran's blockade, what stops the next nation from holding the global economy hostage?