#Gate广场五月交易分享

The Iran-U.S. War Has Entered the Second Half: Trump’s Maximum Pressure, but Time Is on Iran’s Side!

The Deadlock of No War, No Peace: Why Does Iran Have More Patience Than Trump?

Europe’s Chief Economist Mohit Kumar wrote in a report on May 11: Iran holds the advantage of time, and its persistence could even outlast Trump’s patience.

The war has lasted 73 days, and a ceasefire cannot be reached; peace talks have failed, with both the U.S. and Iran refusing to accept each other's proposed end-of-war plans.

Trump called Iran’s latest response on social media platform Truth Social "completely unacceptable," while Iran, through Pakistan intermediaries, submitted its own proposal demanding war reparations, sanctions relief, the return of frozen assets, and US recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Time Is Not on Trump’s Side

The U.S. is the world’s largest economy, with military power crushing Iran—so why does Iran seem to have the advantage instead?

The answer lies in the structural differences of decision-making systems in the two countries.

Iran is currently led by Ayatollah Khamenei, the old Khamenei’s son, who was hastily installed in early March. His power base is not in the clerical class but in the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s current decision-making system is a hybrid security governance model: the nominal highest authority is the Supreme Leader, but actual policy decisions come from a small elite security coalition—Revolutionary Guard command, intelligence agencies, and the leaders of the Quds Force. This system has two characteristics: a short decision-making chain and highly intertwined internal interests. Once consensus is reached, implementation is extremely fast. It can also withstand long-term pressure.

After Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Iran endured the harshest sanctions in history—currency devaluation, soaring inflation, economic contraction—but the regime did not collapse. The Revolutionary Guards control key economic sectors and are the biggest beneficiaries of the sanctions system; the heavier the sanctions, the greater their power within Iran.

America’s pace is entirely different!

Trump needs to achieve diplomatic results within his term. His presidency is limited, and he must also contend with midterm congressional elections and judicial checks.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s core task is to maintain the dollar’s strength and control inflation; Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin aims to avoid new quagmires; and Wally Adeyemo has been reassigned from National Security Advisor to U.S. Ambassador to the UN as of May 2025, with Secretary of State Blinken taking over. These personnel changes clearly indicate a lack of unified voice within the White House on Iran.

Trump indeed hopes to reach an agreement, but he must prove to his supporters that the U.S. has successfully negotiated a deal on nuclear issues—this was the original purpose of initiating this war.

It’s a dilemma: Trump needs an agreement to justify the war, but Iran will not make concessions on nuclear issues. Iran’s negotiation plan pushes the nuclear question to a later stage, rather than as the basis for negotiations as the U.S. demands. Accepting an agreement without nuclear concessions would mean admitting the war was pointless; insisting Iran dismantle its nuclear program prolongs the deadlock. Every minute spent is an advantage for Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, but this needs to be viewed separately.

The U.S. has not officially declared a blockade, but in mid-April, Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to blockade the strait, prohibiting all ships that previously docked at Iranian ports from passing through.

Iran responded with reciprocal measures, imposing high transit fees on commercial ships passing through the strait and selectively allowing passage. On May 4, the U.S. launched Operation Freedom to guide trapped ships through the strait, but deadly clashes occurred with Iranian forces. A day later, Trump announced a pause in this operation.

Actual data speaks louder than rhetoric: commercial transit through the Strait of Hormuz has dropped by over 90%. Saudi Aramco has rerouted its export routes outside the strait, leading to a 25% jump in first-quarter profits. Today, May 11, Brent crude oil prices again surpassed $100 per barrel, doubling the pre-war level.

No need for an official sinking of ships or declaring a blockade. Through selective attacks, route threats, and soaring insurance rates, the strait has been de facto closed, with Iran achieving maximum effect at minimal cost.

Why Iran Doesn’t Need to Win

Game theory has a fundamental concept: in a war of attrition, as long as you don’t lose, you win.

Iran doesn’t need to achieve any specific goals in the current situation. It only needs to do three things:

First, refuse to make concessions on nuclear issues;

Second, maintain control over the gray zone in the Strait of Hormuz;

Third, wait for domestic political pressure in the U.S. to increase.

Conversely, Trump must achieve visible results. If by late 2026 or early 2027 no results are achieved, the Republicans’ position in Congress will be very passive, and Trump’s political capital will be depleted.

Iran also holds another overlooked advantage: it is waiting for cracks to appear within the opponent’s team. The White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Treasury Department do not prioritize Iran issues equally; Iran only needs patience, and these fissures will open on their own.

Moreover, on May 11, the UK and France announced they will jointly host a meeting of over 40 defense ministers on May 13 to discuss military plans to restore navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. This is a signal in itself: European allies are no longer willing to wait indefinitely for U.S.-Iran bilateral negotiations to produce results.

Multilateralization means U.S. control weakens, and variables in negotiations increase. And this is precisely what Iran desires most: to drag the bilateral game into a multilateral tug-of-war.