By Lina Irawan 
The Islamic Republic had reportedly offered a seven-day ceasefire, a move seen by some analysts as a desperate attempt to alleviate crippling sanctions and military pressure. Under the terms of the proposal, Iran would fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz – a vital global chokepoint – and resume nuclear talks, which have been stalled since the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. In return, Tehran demanded that the U.S. lift its naval blockade, unfreeze Iranian assets held abroad, and end sanctions on its oil exports, which have severely curtailed the nation’s primary revenue source.
President Trump, speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, dismissed the offer with characteristic bluntness. "They want to make a deal and I think that’s fine," Trump stated, projecting an image of strength and leverage. He added, "Iran is losing so badly. I’d like to make a deal, too. But that deal would not be acceptable." His comments signal a belief that Iran’s economic woes are so profound that they will eventually be forced to accept more stringent terms, aligning with the administration’s strategy of pushing Tehran to the brink.
Further escalating the rhetoric, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump has privately conveyed to aides his expectation to resume bombing Iran after the upcoming midterm elections. This calculated delay, according to the report, is primarily driven by domestic political considerations, as high gas prices—often a direct consequence of Middle East instability—would be less of a political liability after the electoral cycle. This revelation suggests a willingness to use military force as a leverage point, or even as a default option, once the immediate political cost diminishes. Such a strategy would mark a significant escalation in the already tense standoff, moving beyond economic warfare to direct military engagement, a prospect that deeply concerns international observers and regional allies.
This bravado and hardline stance come as U.S. officials increasingly believe the strategic pendulum has swung in their favor. The narrative within Washington is that time is no longer on Iran’s side, but firmly with the United States. This assessment is largely predicated on two key factors: the devastating impact of the U.S. naval blockade and new financial sanctions on the Iranian economy, and the unexpected resilience of global oil markets despite the ongoing conflict.
The U.S. naval blockade, coupled with a raft of secondary sanctions targeting Iran’s financial sector, has been systematically crushing the nation’s economy. Reports from Fortune and other financial outlets indicate that the pressure has led to rampant inflation, a precipitous depreciation of the Rial currency, widespread social unrest, and a significant weakening of the clerical regime’s ability to maintain social cohesion. The economic hardship has reportedly even begun to undermine the influence of figures like Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, signaling deep internal fissures within the Iranian power structure. The sanctions, initially designed to force Iran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear program and regional destabilizing activities, have proven remarkably effective in strangling its economic lifelines, particularly its oil exports. Without substantial oil revenue, Iran struggles to fund its military, support regional proxies, and provide basic services for its populace, creating immense domestic pressure on the leadership.
At the same time, oil markets have demonstrated a robustness that many analysts initially deemed improbable. While crude prices remain elevated—and refined fuels, in particular, have seen a more pronounced shock—the catastrophic extremes that many predicted with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have not materialized, even as the "Iran war" and the strait’s partial closure approach their eighth month. This resilience can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the partial continuation of oil flows through the strait, the strategic release of oil reserves by major consuming nations, increased production from other global suppliers, and perhaps a degree of market adaptation to sustained geopolitical risk.
A significant reason for this unexpected market stability is that the Strait of Hormuz, while contested and dangerous, is only partially closed. In recent weeks, under the protection and guidance of the U.S. military, a growing volume of oil has been successfully transiting the waterway. This managed, albeit risky, flow has prevented a complete supply shock to global markets.
On Wednesday, the maritime intelligence firm Tanker Trackers estimated that the total amount of crude oil exiting the U.S. blockade line through the Strait of Hormuz had surged to 13 million barrels per day (bpd). "The numbers have doubled in less than a month," Tanker Trackers announced in a post on X (formerly Twitter), highlighting the rapid increase in transit volume. This dramatic uptick indicates a concerted effort by the U.S. and its allies to ensure global energy supply despite the regional tensions.
This increase is partly due to Saudi Arabia shifting its oil shipments back through the Persian Gulf. Previously, Riyadh had diverted a significant portion of its exports via its East-West Pipeline to Red Sea ports to bypass the dangers of the Strait of Hormuz. However, a series of persistent and increasingly sophisticated attacks by Iran-backed Houthi and Iraqi fighters on Saudi oil infrastructure, including the East-West Pipeline itself, prompted Riyadh to reconsider its strategy. The continued threat to its alternative export routes left Saudi Arabia with little choice but to rely more heavily on the Persian Gulf and, by extension, the U.S.-protected transits through Hormuz. This unexpected turn of events has inadvertently channeled more oil through the very chokepoint that Iran had sought to leverage.
Tanker Trackers also attributed the recent surge in oil coming out of the Persian Gulf to a critical operational shift: the resumption of daytime transits via the Strait of Hormuz, significantly aided by U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM). This change represents a major tactical victory for the U.S. and its partners, as daytime operations are inherently more efficient and allow for a greater volume of traffic compared to the previously restricted nighttime windows.
Similarly, independent oil expert Rory Johnston estimated that approximately 13.5 million barrels a day are now clearing the strait, based on the latest seven-day average. While this figure is still well below pre-war levels, which often exceeded 20 million bpd, and continues to force global strategic reserves to drop further toward critical lows, it represents a substantial improvement. Notably, this volume is roughly equivalent to the brief peak seen in July, when a temporary U.S.-Iran ceasefire had allowed maritime traffic to rebound.
That earlier respite, however, quickly fell apart, with renewed attacks on shipping resuming shortly thereafter. In response, the U.S. military continued guiding ships through the contested waterway, but these operations were initially confined to night hours to lessen the odds of being targeted by Iranian missiles and drones. This nighttime restriction significantly limited the number of ships that could traverse the strait each day, creating bottlenecks and increasing delivery times.
To overcome this limitation and enhance the flow of vital energy supplies, the U.S. military embarked on a series of decisive actions. First, it conducted targeted airstrikes against Iranian naval and coastal assets believed to be involved in detecting and targeting commercial vessels. These strikes aimed to degrade Iran’s ability to monitor and interdict shipping traffic, thereby creating a safer environment for transit. Concurrently, the U.S. Navy undertook extensive mine-clearing operations, systematically removing Iranian naval mines from the strait’s main shipping corridors, which had posed an invisible and deadly threat to commercial vessels.
With the Iranian threat against ships now significantly waning due to these combined military efforts, a U.S. official told Axios earlier this month that the military and Gulf countries began conducting daytime transits of tankers through the strait. This strategic shift not only increases throughput capacity but also signals a restored level of deterrence and control by the U.S. and its allies over the critical waterway. The sight of U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft flying patrols in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, as seen in recent imagery from September 16, 2026, underscores the persistent military presence dedicated to securing these routes.
However, the increased flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz comes at a considerable financial cost. Moving oil through a warzone, even one under enhanced military protection, is inherently expensive due to the ongoing threat of Iranian attacks. Shipping companies are compelled to pay crews substantially more to compensate for the added risk, a phenomenon known as "hazard pay." Simultaneously, insurance coverage for vessels operating in the Persian Gulf and transiting Hormuz has become significantly costlier, with war risk premiums soaring.
Rory Johnston highlighted this crucial economic dimension, pointing out, "I continue to stress that while a lot of oil is getting out of Hormuz the cost of getting those barrels out is very high ($30-40+/bbl, excluding the cost of the US military)." He further cautioned, "That doesn’t work if global prices fall (or Gulf exporters try to press their prices higher)." This means that while the physical supply of oil is flowing, the hidden costs are substantial, contributing to the elevated global energy prices consumers are currently experiencing. These additional costs essentially act as a "war tax" on global oil, embedded in the final price of fuel and other petroleum products. If crude prices were to drop significantly, or if Gulf exporters sought to maximize their profits by raising their own prices, the economic viability of these high-cost transits could be jeopardized, potentially leading to further disruptions.
The current situation represents a precarious equilibrium. The U.S. appears confident in its strategy of economic strangulation combined with military deterrence and facilitation, believing it can force Iran to capitulate to its demands without a full-scale regional war. Iran, meanwhile, continues to probe for weaknesses, offering diplomatic olive branches while simultaneously backing proxy attacks and maintaining a credible, albeit degraded, threat to shipping. The prospect of renewed U.S. bombing after the midterms adds another layer of extreme risk, threatening to unravel this delicate balance and plunge the region into a broader conflict with unpredictable global consequences. The world watches, holding its breath, as the high-stakes chess game between Washington and Tehran plays out in the critical waterways and political chambers of the Middle East.
